Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Norwegian Government of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) Order, 1951, a copy of which was presented on the 4th July, an Order may be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN SOFTWOOD (PURCHASE)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the desirability of reestablishing normal trading relations with Canada, he will consult with timber importers on the appropriate date for restoring the free enterprise purchase of softwood in Canada.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): The reasons which decided the Government to maintain public buying of softwood from Canada still exist, and until I am satisfied that they have changed in such a way as to make private purchase desirable there would be no purpose in the suggested consultations.

Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his business mind to this matter and break the ice? Apart from the feelings of the Canadians, the rigid system of State purchasing of timber in

Canada is delaying a fall in timber prices in Scandinavia and elsewhere.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, that may be, but there are other considerations, not the least important of which is the necessity for an adequate stockpile.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL GARDENS (CONTINUANCE)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet received the views of the local authorities concerned and is in a position to make any further statement about the future of the Festival Gardens and Fun Fair in Battersea Park.

Lieut.-Colonel, Lipton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the Chelsea Borough Council's opposition, the Battersea Festival Gardens and Fun Fair will be continued after this year.

Mr. Stokes: I have now received the views of the London County Council, who have themselves consulted other authorities concerned. As the text of the London County Council's resolution, which I have received only this morning, is rather long and the gist of it appears in today's newspapers, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT; I will only say now that it is quite consistent with the Government's attitude as already stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 24th July. Discussions will accordingly be opened at once with the London County Council with a view to getting an acceptable scheme in shape.

Mr. Brooke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, when these detailed examinations to which the London County Council has agreed take place, will representatives of the two borough councils concerned be associated with them? Second, when the examination is completed, will a report on it be made to all three local authorities concerned, and will they be given a further opportunity of expressing any views they may have?

Mr. Stokes: My discussions, of course, are with the London County Council. It is its responsibility to deal with the other councils, and the hon. Gentleman's question should be addressed to the London County Council.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of Londoners will back him up solidly if he decides to disregard the churlish misery-mongers of Chelsea? Furthermore, is he aware that by a strange coincidence these councillors and their friends at County Hall who also hate the Fun Fair seem to be members of one political party?

Mr. Stokes: Well, the substance of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is probably correct, but there are always two views in this matter. Without any doubt, there are a minority who disagree with the decision arrived at.

Commander Noble: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to give the other view. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has just made means that originally the use of Battersea Park was obtained under false pretences? He will not deny that the present Foreign Secretary categorically said in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that the original demand, five or seven years, had been modified to one because of local opinion, and he did not wish to break faith. That is exactly what the Lord Privy Seal is doing now.

Mr. Stokes: That really is not so. This is not a static world, thank goodness. People's opinions change. I am fully appreciative of the point of view which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has expressed, and I can only say in reply that we are going to make such arrangements as will ensure the opening of the river side walk and roadway, and to make as much as possible of the Pleasure Gardens available to the public, even though the Fun Fair is shut.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In considering future possibilities, will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion of the London County Council that in future years there might be a reduction in the charge for admission, and a remission in the case of old age pensioners?

Mr. Stokes: All that will be looked at.

Sir Herbert Williams: Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the L.C.C. are entitled to speak for the two borough councils concerned? Is he not

aware that they have an entirely separate mandate from the electorate?

Mr. Stokes: I have had consultations with the L.C.C., and the L.C.C. discussed matters with the other bodies. That is what has happened. I have had no direct discussions with those bodies, and I am sure it is better that it should be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are other people interested in this besides the London people; that this park has given great satisfaction to thousands of people from all over the country, and that it is their desire that people from all over the country should come down to enjoy it?

Mr. Stokes: It is quite clear from the enormous attendances and the general popular favour with which they have been received that the Pleasure Gardens are a very great success.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, as the latter is such an expert on "fun"?

Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the evidence shows that the heaviest purchases of season tickets have been in the Chelsea districts; that many thousands of Chelsea people have found Battersea Park for the first time, and love it?

Mr. Stokes: I can assure my hon. Friend that never, in any of my statements or replies, have I suggested that Chelsea is full of dismal Jimmies. I have always thought that there were some people there with a large capacity for enjoyment and amusement.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite his cosmological views—

Sir Waldron Smithers: What views?

Mr. Johnson: —despite his cosmological views about the world being static, we on these benches are convinced that there are still many "flat earthers" on the benches opposite?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are probably hon. Members in every quarter of the House who attach some importance


to the fact that the 1949 Measure received the unanimous approval of this House on express assurances given by His Majesty's Government; and will he give the most careful attention to see that those assurances are not disregarded?

Mr. Dodds: What about common sense?

Mr. Stokes: I have already dealt with that matter in answer to a supplementary question the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me on another occasion, in which I said quite clearly that this was a matter which the House would themselves have to decide by passing, I suppose, further legislation, which is the time to protest. The fact that certain promises were given at the time surely must be modified by general popular opinion, and general popular opinion indicates that a change should be made.

Sir H. Williams: What about Persia?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is what Dr. Mossadeq said.

Following is the text of the resolution:

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

TAKEN ON 31ST JULY, 1951

That the Council shares the view of the Lord Privy Seal that the present widespread popularity of the Festival Gardens in Battersea Park coupled with the possibility that their continued operation might enable some, if not all, of the cost of their construction to be met from revenue, constitutes a case for the detailed examination of the question of their continuance after 1951; that if, as a result of such examination, a continuance should be decided upon, the Council would not raise objection to enabling legislation permitting an extension of not more than five years; but considers that there should he an experimental period of two years after the conclusion of the Festival before any decision is taken for or against a permanent continuance and that the consent of the Council should he required to any extension beyond two years; but during that experimental period there should he no change in the present limitation of £40,000 of the Council's total liability of loss; and that in the course of the proposed detailed examination the possibilities should he explored:

(a) of providing in Royal parks the games facilities which could otherwise be provided in the Festival Gardens area;
(b) of making a reduction in the price of admission in future years; and
(c) of remitting the admission charge of old age pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOUR DISCRIMINATION (HOTELS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is taken by his Welfare Department, in conjunction with the British Travel and Holidays Association or otherwise, to deal with complaints by colonial citizens in Britain of colour discrimination in hotels and other catering establishments; and how many such complaints have been received in the past year.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Any complaints received in my Department are investigated and taken up in the appropriate quarter. Only one complaint has been brought to my attention during the past year. This was satisfactorily dealt with by the British Travel and Holidays Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Labour Advisory Board

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the constitution of the Labour Advisory Board of Malaya; how it is elected; how many times it has met; when the last meeting took place; and who is the independent chairman.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Malayan Labour Advisory Board, as appointed annually from 1947 to 1950, consisted of four Government representatives and four representatives each of employers and workers, appointed by the High Commissioner after consultation with the employers' and workers' organisations. The Commissioner of Labour, one of the Government representatives, was Chairman. There have been 19 meetings since 1947, the last in October, 1950. The composition of the Board is now under review, and it is hoped to announce its reconstitution shortly.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the last meeting took place in February of this year, does the Secretary of State not think that the Board is ineffective when it meets so infrequently; and would he also consider appointing an independent Chairman other than the Commissioner of Labour, to create greater confidence among the workers in Singapore?

Mr. Griffiths: The constitution of the Board is now under consideration by the Government, and I note the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Awbery: When it has been considered, will my right hon. Friend also consider giving the trade unions the opportunity of electing direct representatives to the Board?

Mr. Griffiths: All that can be considered, and I am sure it will be by the Government.

Medical Plan

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what part of the programme of the Medical Plan of Singapore was carried out in 1948, 1949 and 1950, and what is scheduled for 1951; and to what extent it is the intention of the Government of Singapore to expand the Kerbau Maternity Hospital and establish clinics in the rural areas.

Mr. J. Griffiths: During 1948 and 1949, 205,000 dollars and 126,000 dollars, respectively, were spent on improving hospital facilities. The formal Medical Plan began in 1950, when 278,000 dollars was spent. Projected expenditure this year is 1,456,000 dollars. The plan provides for doubling the facilities at the Kerbau hospital, and for 16 new permanent maternity and child welfare clinics. Thirty-eight clinics already exist.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Director of Medical Services has stated that the medical need in Singapore and Malaya is desperate; that there is a great need for nurses and for training schools; that there is a dearth of clinics, particularly in the rural areas; and does he not think that the provision of these would do more to retard the progress of Communism than the use of arms?

Mr. Griffiths: I am deeply conscious of the need for extending the social services in Singapore, and both I and the local government will do everything we possibly can to speed up the development of these essential services.

Emergency Newspaper Regulations

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that emergency newspaper regulations have

been made in Singapore; that they reduce the freedom of the Press and give powers to the legislature to suspend a newspaper for offences not stated; and if he will delay implementing these regulations until he has had consultation with all interests concerned.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the new restrictions on Press freedom in Singapore.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Emergency (News paper) Regulations were published on 5th July and were approved 10 days later by the Legislative Council, with two dissentients. I am in correspondence with the Governor on certain aspects of this matter, and I would therefore prefer not to make a statement at this stage.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the new regulations give power to suppress not only newspapers but also newsprint; and should he not take action through the courts rather than using arbitrary powers to suppress newspapers and newsprint?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I prefer not to make any statement on this matter. I am discussing the matter with the Governor.

Mr. Driberg: Since that means that my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement to this House until October, if he finds on examination that the allegations contained in my hon. Friend's supplementary question are correct, will he take immediate action during the Recess?

Mr. Griffiths: I will discuss the matter very fully with the Governor, and will consult with him about what action will be taken. I would ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind that this is in Singapore, in the heart of an area where there is an emergency.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the emergency as being in progress for some considerable time. Can he tell the House what then has now caused these regulations to be made?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I am in correspondence with the Governor on this matter, and I should prefer to leave the matter where it is until our consultations are complete.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the regulations are due to become operative today, will the Minister hold them up until an inquiry has been held?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think I ought to hold up regulations which have been approved by the Legislative Council. I am consulting with the Governor, but I could not hold them up because this has been decided by the local government.

Alex Josey (Broadcasts)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has studied information sent to him about subversive broadcasts in Malaya by Alex Josey, and in view of the unsettled state of that country, if he will take steps to end such broadcasts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. Josey is a member of the staff of Radio Malaya, whose duties have included the making of regular commentaries on the news. These broadcasts have been subject to prior scrutiny, although in practice latitude has been allowed. They have been given weekly for the last two years and are, of course, in no sense subversive.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Government take some effective action against Communism?

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these broadcasts are extremely effective anti-Communist propaganda, and will he consider putting into the Library of the House the booklets in which they have been reprinted, so that hon. Members may judge for themselves how completely untrue and unfair this question is?

Mr. Griffiths: indicated assent.

Special Constables

Mr. Gilbert Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions exist for training men who are serving as special constables in Malaya so as to facilitate their ultimate resettlement in civil life.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) on 11th July. I will also write to the hon. Member when the report for which I have asked is received.

Mr. Longden: I am afraid that I am not aware of the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Will he not agree that this will help to recruit the best types of men for this very vital work upon which the lives of fellow countrymen depend, that is, if they can feel that steps are being taken to reinstate them in civil life later?

Mr. Griffiths: The answer which I gave previously was that I had set up a committee to study this problem and when I see their report I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Call-Up (Evasion)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken to prevent young men in Malaya from evading their National Service obligations by taking up temporary residence in Singapore.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since movement between the Federation and Singapore is uncontrolled there are serious practical difficulties in dealing with this matter, but the question is under active consideration by both Governments.

Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the extent of this trouble?

Mr. Griffiths: No. I think that the hon. Member has been to Singapore and Malaya, and I am sure that he will appreciate that it is very difficult to give any estimate on that question. It is a very serious problem, and it is being carefully and urgently examined.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these people escaped to the Turtle and Mangsee Islands which have been transferred from the British Empire to the Philippine Republic?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Overseas Food Corporation (Crops)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a statement on the harvest of groundnut, and other crops grown this season by the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika; and if he can now give an indication of the cropping and cattle grazing plans for the coming year.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Harvesting is still in full operation in all three of the Corporation's areas in Tanganyika and only tentative estimates of the eventual yields can now be given. The Corporation hope to harvest 8,500 tons of groundnuts, 9,500 tons of maize and 4,500 tons of sorghum. Plans for the 1951–52 agricultural year have not yet been settled.

Mr. Hurd: After meeting the food requirements of the local population, will there be any substantial quantity of groundnuts and maize available for shipment here; and will the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement about future plans as soon as he has anything definite in view?

Mr. Griffiths: With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, Mr. Gillett, the new chairman, has now gone out to East Africa. I saw him before he went, and I have arranged that as soon as everything is settled he will report, and I will make a full statement here. I should prefer not to commit myself about the detailed figures. Perhaps I could send them to the hon. Gentleman after I have made further inquiries.

Mr. Hurd: Will there be something available for this country after local requirements have been met?

Mr. Griffiths: There will be, but I should not like to commit myself as to the amount.

Corn Storage Department

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the scheme of the Tanganyika Government to establish a grain storage department, including silos with conditioning plants, at selected centres.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the reply is necessarily lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:
In 1949 a Department of Grain Storage was set up in the territory and a start was made upon a building programme to provide storage on a territorial scale. The programme is now nearing completion and will provide storage for some 52,000 tons of grain sited at 13 strategic centres throughout the country. In addition, the storage programme provides for conditioning plants at Moshi, Korogwe and Kilosa; the Kilosa Plant is already working and the other two are now undergoing trials. The plants are for experimental purposes in the first instance.

The programme described above is designed to meet the major part of the territory's short term requirements. In 1952, it is proposed to follow this up with smaller supplementary programmes to provide further storage in the light of experience to be gained. In supplement of this major territorial project, native authorities throughout the territory are being encouraged and assisted by Government to provide local storage facilities. These are necessarily on a proportionately smaller scale than those included in the territorial programme.
Thus, in the Handeni District, 10 Chiefdom grain stores, each of a capacity of 150 tons are to he constructed; in the Lake Province a total capacity of 7,000 tons storage is to be provided on the basis of small cylindrical stores in groups of 100 to 150 tons in capacity and also experimental underground storage pits of 100 to 250 tons capacity. The Central Province has had its own system of native authority grain storage for some years now with capacity of approximately 8,000 tons. On a smaller scale, the Southern Highlands and the Northern Province have had similar systems of native authority storage for several years.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL STUDENTS, U.K. (ACCOMMODATION)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the circumstances leading up to the writing of a letter from the Director of Colonial Scholars on 19th July telling certain colonial students in Hans Crescent that their positions as scholarship students would have to be reconsidered if they did not vacate the accommodation they were occupying; and what is the latest position arising from this letter.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the dispute between the British Council and the colonial students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel, in view of the letter written by his Department to these students on 19th July;
(2) whether he will request the British Council to stay the eviction order made by them against the colonial students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel, pending a general reconsideration of all welfare and accommodation problems affecting colonial students in Great Britain.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Owing to the length of the answer, I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Can the Secretary of State say whether he proposes to publish any target figure which he hopes to reach for the accommodation of these students in hostels? This is extremely important.

Mr. Griffiths: I am making a full statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Smithers: Is the information for which I have asked in that statement?

Hon. Members: Wait and see.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am concerned and anxious to make the best provision I can for students from the Colonies who are staying in this country. There are now about 5,000 students from the Colonies in the United Kingdom, about half of whom are in London. Unfortunately, the problem of accommodation for students is more difficult in London than anywhere else in the country, but many students want to come to London for special reasons, such as studying law.
The House will realise that in existing circumstances the provision of hostel accommodation for all colonial students is not practicable, even if it were desirable. Apart from any question of cost, there is the difficulty of building, or of finding any conveniently placed buildings suitable for adaptation in the inner London area.
It has therefore been my policy to reserve the available hostel accommodation mainly for newly arriving students who are in particular need of such accommodation while they are getting used to English conditions, and also during vacation for students who are visiting London.
Of the 167 students who had been accepted for residence at Hans Crescent for the 1950–51 academic year, 112 were asked to leave to make room for new students. I may say that more than a thousand new students will be coming here during the next few months.
All the students who were asked to leave were offered alternative accommodation by the British Council, and the majority accepted this offer. A little over 40, however, have refused offers of alternative accommodation and have been staying on in Hans Crescent without the Council's permission. Included among these latter are four colonial scholars to

whom the Director of Colonial Scholars wrote saying that if they continued to occupy accommodation to which they were not entitled, their position as scholarship holders would have to be reviewed. I have not, however, caused 'any deductions to be made from the allowances paid to them.
At the same time, I must repeat that these students are retaining accommodation to which they are not entitled and which is required for others who need it more. I have arranged that the Under-Secretary shall meet the students in Hans Crescent this evening to discuss their position with them and I hope that it will be possible to arrive at some amicable settlement.
As regards the general position, I think that with the continuing growth of the student population more hostel accommodation is needed, and to help meet the influx of new students this summer I have already arranged with the British Council for Moray Lodge, Campden Hill, to be opened as a temporary hostel. It will accommodate 60 students at one time. I am also discussing with the Council the permanent provision of extra hostel accommodation, and I hope that it will be found possible to add as much as 200 beds to the present capacity.
I must, however, repeat that there is no question of His Majesty's Government providing hostel accommodation for all colonial students. Most students must continue to rely upon lodgings, and it is not true that suitable lodgings are impossible for them to obtain. The British Council have done a great deal in helping students to find suitable lodgings and now have on their books many hundred addresses of good lodgings where colonial students are welcome. This service is at the disposal of any colonial student. In addition, the Council get valuable help from voluntary societies in providing accommodation for colonial students.

Sir R. Acland: As regards the letter about the scholarship grants, as this was sent without any consultation with the colonial Governments who actually paid money for the scholarships, and as it has caused more bitterness than any other question in this story, would the Minister consider the advisability of withdrawing it, as it was a mistake to have sent such a letter at that time?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that, by arrangement with the Colonial Governments, the care and welfare of these students, about which we are deeply concerned, particularly in London, is left by them to myself and to the Colonial Office. I have not acted beyond that. When we provide scholarships for students, it is not unreasonable to ask them to accept the regulations and rules which we make in the interests of the students here, of whom there are 5,000. We are glad to welcome them, we are doing our best for them and, with their co-operation, we can make a big success of this.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that with regard to the 40 students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel there was not at any rate a misunderstanding, if not an actual breach of faith, by the British Council in regard to the length of time that they understood they were to be allowed to stay in that hostel?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure there was no breach of faith. There may have been misunderstanding by those men about the term "academic year." As I have said, the Under-Secretary is this evening meeting the students concerned and, if I may appeal to hon. Members, I think it would be better if we leave him to discuss this matter with them in the hope that there will be a settlement.

Mr. Gammans: Does the last part of the statement mean that the British Council has available more lodgings on its books than there are students who may want that accommodation? And would it be true to say that no colonial student in this country who has registered for accommodation through the British Council cannot find it?

Mr. Griffiths: It is true that the British Council have now a list of accommodation which they investigated personally to make sure that it is satisfactory. That accommodation is not occupied at present, and therefore it is available to the colonial students.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon Friend say when these students are made aware of the fact that the accommodation in the hostel will be limited to one year only? Is it made before they come to this country, or after their arrival here.

and who is entrusted with the task of conveying the information to them?

Mr. Griffiths: The task is entrusted to the British Council, and they are made aware of that. Also, the policy has been made known collectively that, since there is limited accommodation with regard to these hostels, we think—and I am sure I will carry the House with me here—that it is better to confine this at present to as many new students as possible in order to give them 12 months in which to accommodate themselves to conditions here. After 12 months we hope and believe they will be able to fit into the available accommodation in lodgings. That is much better than young people having to do so when they come here for the first time.

Sir R. Acland: Will my right hon. Friend ask his hon. Friend this evening and subsequently, to pay special attention to the possibility of the personal relations between the students and their representative, on the one side, and the representatives of the British Council, on the other, being a little better in the future by being more tactfully managed than in the past?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will meet them and will discuss the problem fully with them. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that cordial relations are a two-way traffic.

Sir Edward Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that accusations of that kind, however unjustified, can spread like wildfire in the Colonies from which these students come. Would he, therefore, on this tricky matter, assure us that he is keeping constantly in touch with the respective governments?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I am deeply conscious of the fact that among the many thousands of young students who come here are the future leaders of their countries in five or 10 years time in an important developing stage of the Colonial Empire. I am, therefore, deeply anxious about any rumours that may spread.
That is why I sought the permission of you, Mr. Speaker, and of the House, to make a full statement so that this can reach people in the Colonial Territories. I have asked my hon. Friend to meet the students this evening, because I do not want any misunderstanding of this kind


to spread in the form of rumours that might misrepresent the position and cause ill feeling between us and the people of the Colonies.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will receive a deputation from the Consultative Committee of Colonial students' unions to discuss the general problems of welfare and accommodation of colonial students in Great Britain.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am very ready to receive a deputation from representative student bodies and will arrange to do so at an early date.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement will give great satisfaction among the students who have hitherto felt that they have been prevented from getting to the Department which is responsible for the administration of hostel accommodation?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that they have been prevented. I am always ready and anxious to receive deputations and to discuss problems with them.

Commander Noble: Has there been any question of the Minister refusing to see such a deputation?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I have not refused to see any deputation.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Did not the right hon. Gentleman refuse to receive a deputation from West Indian students about this matter recently?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that the Minister ought to receive deputations upon problems of this kind from those who are directly responsible for the administration and those directly concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Cameroons (British Administration)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Russian allegations in the Trusteeship Council on 6th July against the British administration in the Cameroons; and what steps he has taken to rebut them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. These allegations were effectively rebutted by

the United Kingdom representatives in the Council. A copy of the relevant verbatim record has been placed in the Library of the House, and, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an extract from the speech of Brigadier Gibbons, the United Kingdom spokesman.

Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister assure the House that the African people in the Cameroons enjoy the right of habeas corpus as much as any cockney in London?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I hope that hon. Members who may have heard these charges made against the administration in this area will read the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT and look at the copy of the verbatim record which I am placing in the Library.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend agree to investigate the standard of administration in the Cameroon Development Corporation, in view of the fact that over the last three years more than one-third of the European staff have left the Corporation and feel very bitter that opportunities to make their complaints heard have not been given to them?

Mr. Griffiths: That supplementary question does not arise on this Question and answer.

Following is the extract:
The first of these astonishing suggestions was that, under the present Administration, the people of the Territory are deprived of all civic rights. Now let us simply ask ourselves what in fact is this machinery of tyranny which is supposed to exist. There are no troops stationed in the Territory. There is, of course, no secret police. In a population of over one million there are three—only three—British police officers and 497 government and native administration police recruited from the people of the Territory themselves, none of whom carries arms on normal duty. Thus, there is only one policeman to over two thousand of the inhabitants. In fact, even in these early stages of our educational expansion, there are considerably more than twice as many teachers in the schools as there are policemen. The inhabitants enjoy the same freedom from arbitrary arrest which was won by the English people centuries ago. The writ of habeas corpus runs in this Territory as surely as it runs in London and throughout the British Commonwealth.
 I must now mention in passing what appeared to me to be the most bizarre of the


misconceptions expressed, namely, that the Administering Authority is pursuing a policy of capacious exploitation in alienating the lands of the people in order to produce raw materials for the profit of the United Kingdom. The Council is, of course, already fully aware that the exact opposite is the case. The policy of the present Administration, which has been generously commended by this Council, has in fact been to restore to the people of this Territory lands previously alienated from them and to ensure to the inhabitants of the Trust Territory exclusively the enjoyment of all the benefits derived from their operation, whether in the shape of trading profits or of tax accruing to government, of which, as the Council well knows, not one penny is appropriated either by the Nigerian Government or by the United Kingdom.

Nigeria (Education for Citizenship)

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received from the Nigerian Government on the results of the new experimental courses in education for citizenship conducted at Man O' War Bay; and whether plans are being considered for the development of this training in the Cameroons or its extension elsewhere in West Africa.

Mr. J. Griffiths: None, Sir. Only two courses have so far been held and it is too early yet to judge the success of this interesting experiment. I am not aware of any plans for the development of this particular form of training in the Cameroons, or for its extension elsewhere in West Africa.

Mr. Cooper: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the results achieved so far at Man O' War Bay are sufficiently encouraging to justify this scheme being continued and developed with a view to extending it to other parts of West Africa?

Mr. Griffiths: It is certainly a very interesting experiment, but I should have thought it was too early yet to pass a final judgment upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Jamaica (Crime)

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what way he has decided to take action, with a view to help to stem the prevalence of crime in Jamaica, especially the corruption in the Jamaican-controlled parochial

councils, and to deal with the question of the drug, known as ganja, which contributes to political and trade union violence.

Mr. J. Griffiths: These are matters within the competence of the Government of Jamaica. The Governor is concerned at the amount of crime, particularly in Kingston, but he has reported that the police are doing much excellent work both generally and in a successful campaign against those who grow, use and traffic in ganja. Sir Hugh Foot does not accept the sweeping suggestion of corruption in the parochial boards.

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this increase in crime may indicate that the Constitution, which was brought into being in 1944, requires to be looked at again, in view of the fact that it has brought into the Assembly some irresponsible sections of the community, and this is perhaps the cause of this increase in crime?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that I can accept the view that the people on the boards are irresponsible.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting some ganja in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may decide for themselves whether this drug has the effects attributed to it?

Mr. Griffiths: I will see what I can do during the Recess.

British Guiana (Rice Prices)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he is sending to the resolution sent him by the rice growers of British Guiana asking for his assistance in getting more favourable prices.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The price of rice supplied by British Guiana to other West Indian territories is governed by a contract. It has been agreed that the price to be paid during the period 1952–54 should be referred to arbitration under the terms of that contract.

Mr. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in British Guiana at the possibility of the present prices being renewed over a further period of years, and in view of the need for more encouragement to bring


the social services to something like a decent level, will he do what he can to help in this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have already stated, they have agreed now to refer this question to arbitration.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (U.N. REPORT)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the proposal made in the United Nations Report on Measures for the Economic Development of Under-developed Countries for the establishment of an Economic Commission for Africa; and, particularly, on the question of securing direct representation on such a Commission for the non-self-governing territories in Africa.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As stated last February by the United Kingdom delegate to the Economic and Social Council, we consider that the objectives of an Economic Commission for Africa can be fully achieved by existing machinery, which is described in paragraphs 459–463 and 853–855 of my Report to Parliament for 1950–51, and we agree with the other countries in or concerned with Africa in seeing no advantage in setting up another organisation for this purpose.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Minister consider with the Leader of the House the desirability of having a discussion in this House about this question, as a most authoritative United Nations Report makes this one of its major recommendations, and similar Commissions in regard to South-East Asia have succeeded in rendering very considerable service.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter which my hon. Friend should take up with the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CLOSER ASSOCIATION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what views have so far been expressed on the proposals for closer association of the Central African Territories by African District and Provincial Councils in Northern Rhodesia

and Nyasaland and by the Nyasaland African Protectorate Council and the Northern Rhodesian African Representative Council.

Mr. J. Griffiths: So far as I am aware, the District and Provincial Councils and the Protectorate and Representative Councils have not formally considered the proposals contained in the Report. As my hon. Friend is aware, I propose to make a visit to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland later in this month, and I shall have personal discussions with representatives of the bodies referred to in this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LOCAL CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what qualifications must be possessed by the members of the committees which are to be appointed to secure closer co-operation between the Colonial Development Corporation and the peoples of the territories in which they operate; and when these committees will be appointed.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The qualifications necessary for membership of these committees are laid down in Section 7 (1) of the Overseas Resources Development Act. A committee appointed is to include persons having knowledge of the circumstances and requirements of the inhabitants of the territory obtained by their being or having been themselves inhabitants thereof or residents therein. It is for the Corporation to judge whether the appointment of such committees is needed and this matter is, I understand, being considered as part of the general review of the question of association with local peoples, to which I referred in my reply to my right hon. Friend's question on 18th July.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the powers constituting these committees have been in existence for four years since the Act came into operation and that there is widespread disappointment that the Corporation have been so slow in appointing people to fill these positions?

Mr. Griffiths: The Board are anxious to set up these committees, and I am anxious that they should be set up as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is this the organisation of which Mr. Dumpleton is in charge?

Mr. Griffiths: This is the work in which Mr. Dumpleton is engaged.

Sir H. Williams: I again ask the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Turtle and Mangsee Islands on this committee?

Mr. Griffiths: I will answer that question if the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY" (DIVERS' EXAMINATION)

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a public statement about the loss of H.M.S. "Affray" before the House rises.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress has been made by the Naval Board of Inquiry into the loss of H.M.S. "Affray."

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what further news he has of the inquiries into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Affray"; whether he will consider salving the wreck as a useful exercise, if the risks are not excessive; and whether he will release all facts that may come to light, other than those that are needlessly distressing or contraindicated on grounds of security.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, answer these Questions at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Callaghan: In the 47 days since the wreck of H.M. Submarine "Affray" was found, diving has been possible only on 15 days. Suited divers, who can be used for only one hour in 24 at this depth and in these tides, have made six descents, and 26 dives have been made by observation chamber. Diving was suspended for a short time because the submarine became unstable. She is now lying at an angle of at least 50 degrees and seems to have settled there.
With great determination, the divers have made an examination of the whole length of the submarine, but apart from her snort, they have found no other damage to her superstructure, hydroplanes, propellers, rudder or asdic dome. Her fore hatch is securely shut, and so is the after escape hatch. Her internal tube caps are closed. The hydroplanes are set to rise. Her bridge telegraphs are at stop, but as she was on a war patrol they may have been disconnected at the start of the exercise.
The Naval Board of Inquiry has presented an Interim Report, and before final conclusions are drawn, the diving ship H.M.S. Reclaim is trying to get further evidence. This is proving difficult, mainly due to the list of the submarine. Work has been restricted recently because of bad weather.
As the House will know, the broken snort has been recovered and subjected to a series of metallurgical tests. These show that the metallurgical condition of some of its members is below standard and that some of the welding is not good. A critical examination is therefore being made of the snort tubes of the A Class submarines, and the same sort of defects have been revealed in the snort tubes of two other submarines. It has therefore been decided to replace the snort tubes of all A Class submarines, and the present ban on snorting will remain until this has been done and the submarines re-equipped. Opportunity is being taken to re-examine the design of the snort tubes to see whether improvements can be made.
As to salvage, the House will have concluded from what I said at the beginning of this answer, that diving conditions are hazardous and that it is extremely difficult to work at these depths. The effective weight of a flooded submarine is nearly 1,000 tons, and the prospects of successfully lifting that weight in stages through nearly 300 feet are not at all good. No final decision on salvage has yet been taken.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The House will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a most serious statement with regard to the deficiency in the snort apparatus. May I therefore ask him two questions? Can he give us an assurance that those responsible for examining all the vital equipment of this kind have available to


them the most modern methods for detecting faults? May I ask him to promise the House that the Admiralty will conduct the most rigorous investigations into all possible causes of the defects in the snort tube? I am sure the House would wish me to express—this, I am sure, must be felt in all quarters—our admiration for the divers, and to pay our tribute to them for their gallantry and devotion to duty in what has been a very hazardous task?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, the best equipment is available for purposes of inspection, but inspection is not applied to 100 per cent.; otherwise, we would have as many inspectors as workmen doing a particular job. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, certainly the Admiralty are now pursuing the whole history of the fabrication and manufacture of these snorts.

Commander Noble: In view of the fact that the Minister told us earlier this afternoon that we were going to transfer four submarines to France, can he say whether the fact that so many officers under training were on this occasion sent out in one submarine was due to shortage of submarines? If so, is this transfer really desirable?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, it was not due to shortage of submarines. It is the normal practice to send that number of officers forming a complete team, out on a job of this sort.

Commander Maitland: Although the hon. Gentleman has told us that there is a defect in the snort metal, does his answer mean that no decision has been reached as to how the accident occurred? Can he assure the House that every effort will be made, quite irrespective of the defects in the metal, to find out how the accident occurred?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. I was careful not to conclude that the accident had been caused by a defect in the snort, as, I think, a perusal of my answer will show. It is the most obvious theory, but the reason why H.M.S. Reclaim is now trying to get further evidence is in order to confirm that theory or, alternatively, to open up a fresh series of thoughts on the subject.

Captain Ryder: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's reply about the testing

of this apparatus, may I ask whether, in cases where welding is used for very vital structure, it is not the practice to have these subjected to an X-ray test? Will the hon. Gentleman insist on the other snorts in future being subjected to this very vital and important test?

Mr. Callaghan: X-ray photography is used to test welds, but, as I have said, it is not applied 100 per cent. It has not been applied 100 per cent. in the past. Whether it should be so in the future in relation to snorts or any other parts of a ship's superstructure, is now a matter for consideration.

Sir Ian Fraser: As, judging from the hon. Gentleman's answer, no final decision has yet been taken as to whether an attempt is to be made to lift the submarine, will the Admiralty take into account not merely the interest in the lifting of the submarine to ascertain the full reason for the accident and to prevent its recurrence, but also the value of such a highly complicated technical exercise to all the skilled men who would be engaged in it? Having regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks that there would be 1,000 tons weight, would that not be modified if it were possible to pump out the water?

Mr. Callaghan: The considerations which the hon. Member mentions are, of course, very much in our minds, but there are considerations on the other side also, as he will appreciate. I would rather not go into technicalities as to what the weight to be lifted would be if water were pumped out. I imagine that it would be less, for obvious reasons, but the difficulty of pumping the water out is one of the reasons, which I think, might lead to the reaching of the conclusion not to raise the submarine.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: Is there not a valve at the bottom of the snort tube so as to prevent damage to the snort tube alone causing a disaster such as this? Does the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given mean that the valve has gone wrong at the same time as the defect in the snort tube occurred?

Mr. Callaghan: The snort induction valve is there precisely for the purpose which the hon. Member indicates. That is one reason why H.M.S. Reclaim is now


trying to get further evidence in order to confirm the theory that has been put forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBMARINES (LOAN TO FRANCE)

Mr. Paget: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many submarines it is intended to transfer to the French Navy.

Mr. Callaghan: His Majesty's Government have agreed to lend four submarines to the French Navy for a period of four years. They are the Statesman, Satyr, Spiteful and Sportsman. They are now being refitted in this country under Admiralty supervision and at the expense of the French Government, and will be transferred on the satisfactory completion of refits and trials.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Motor Car Suppressors

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General if he will request his advisory committee to consider forthwith and advise him in an interim report as to the terms of a specific draft regulation to require suppressors to be fitted to motor cars for the reduction of interference on television sets in order that this may not be subject to further delay.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): The Committee considering ignition systems has now submitted a report. When I have fully considered the advice given to me in the report, I will make a statement about the action I propose to take with regard to regulations. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library and for a brief Summary of its main recommendations to be given to the Press.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been badgering him about this for years and that I shall continue to do so? Will he give us some indication when he expects to arrive at some decision on this comparatively simple matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is too retrospective. The main problems I have to face in making a statement is whether or not to have sup-

pressors on new cars only, whether to limit those suppressors to the parts of the country where we have television, to arrange for the production of testing equipment, to test them afterwards, and all those sorts of things which are involved. I think we must have some time to look into it.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reasons which he has given are reasons which seem to indicate that a decision could be comparatively quickly arrived at?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That will depend upon the technical committee.

Pontop Pike

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction that is felt on the North-East Coast at the decision to defer the television low-power transmitter at Pontop Pike, which was to serve that part of the country; and whether he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 55 together.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. I am not satisfied that these Questions should be answered together and would like them answered separately.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I accept the hon. Lady's request. I recognise that the decision has caused disappointment and I regret its necessity, but the postponement of work on this and other low-powered television stations was decided only after a careful review of the requirements of the defence programme. I would add that the Select Committee on Estimates endorsed this decision in the light of the evidence before them. The B.B.C.'s station at Kirk o'Shotts and the radio link were well advanced when it was decided to postpone the low-powered stations.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the North-East Coast is not satisfied with that kind of answer, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation after the Recess to discuss this very important matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have already received a very substantial deputation from


North-East Coast Members and have let them have a considered reply on the matter.

Mr. Chetwynd: Whilst regretting the necessity of this decision about the low-power station programme due to the claims of the defence programme, can my right hon. Friend give us two assurances—that when the programme can be resumed, priority will be given in this matter to the North-East Coast area; and that the southern parts of the area will receive satisfactory television reception from the new station at Holme Moss?

Mr. Ness Edwards: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I think I can give the assurance that the area will get priority in the low power programme, when it is operated. With regard to the second part of the question, there will be a lot of fringe reception in the southern part of this area.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not received a deputation from the local authorities and that there has been no disclosure of what passed at the deputation between Socialist Members and himself, will the right hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from the local authorities?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no objection to receiving a deputation on behalf of the local authorities, but I understand that considerable publicity has been given to the reply which I gave to the North-East Coast Members.

Miss Ward: But I am a North-East Coast Member.

Miss Ward: asked the Postmaster-General why it has been decided to continue with the scheme to provide television for Scotland by way of the relay station at Pontop Pike and eliminate an addition to Pontop Pike which would serve the North-East Coast; and if he will ensure equal treatment for both regions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: My answer to this Question is the same as the one I gave to Question No. 44.

Miss Ward: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to a deputation of North-East Coast hon. Members received by him when I am a North-East hon. Member and had no notice of the deputation?

Will he kindly let me know what was the subject of discussion, what his speech was and what really was the case put forward on behalf of myself as well as of other hon. Members, so that I may send the information on to the local authorities concerned?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should be glad to let the hon. Lady have a copy, but I should have thought that she would have read all about this in her own newspapers.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not present at the deputation because I was not invited? Is he also aware that what would be in the newspapers would be an inspired Press report and not the secret information which he gave to my political opponents?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Lady should not be so suspicious.

Mr. J. Johnson: In view of the hon. Lady's earlier allegations that the deputation consisted wholly of Socialist hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend define what he meant when he spoke about a substantial delegation?

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that there are not sufficient Conservative hon. Members for the North-East to make a deputation?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This is rather important as a matter of principle. When the Minister tells the House that he received a substantial delegation of hon. Members from the North-East Coast, are we to understand that he meant that it was a party delegation or are we to take it that it was an all-party delegation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I was not attempting to mislead the House. I was asked to receive a deputation. If the hon. Lady had asked me to receive one, I should have had very great pleasure in doing so.

Mr. Nicholson: Would it not have been more straightforward if the right hon. Gentleman had said "party delegation"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not for me to arrange delegations.

Colour Transmissions

Mr. Gammans: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to provide this country with television in colour.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. informs me that it is carrying out long-term investigations into fundamental problems of colour television; much research work will have to be done before a system suitable for public service is evolved. The Post Office is keeping in touch with technical developments, at home and abroad, so that it will be in a position to provide appropriate facilities for transmitting colour television signals from point to point.

Mr. Gammans: Is not the United States on the verge of having colour television? Why should we not have it here? Is it because we are saddled with a State monopoly and the Americans are not?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is very great controversy in America about the sort of colour television that they have.

Holme Moss

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Holme Moss Television Station will relay only the Alexandra Palace programmes or whether it will be provided with an outside television recording unit and television studios in Yorkshire and Lancashire, so that the North of England can make its contribution to the national television programme.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. intends that the North of England shall contribute outside broadcasts and newsreel items to television programmes. The Corporation does not propose to provide television studios outside London at present.

Sir I. Fraser: How can that be done when there is no co-axial cable up there?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a coaxial cable up there.

Sir I. Fraser: In the North-West?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Sir I. Fraser: Where does it go to?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to an earlier question he would have known that it is already there.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Why cannot Lancashire and Yorkshire have television studios? Is it not most important that the rest of England should be able to hear

and see what we in Yorkshire and Lancashire are saying and doing so that they can do the same tomorrow?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that it was more important that some persons should first get a programme before others get two programmes.

Miss Ward: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the North of England and leave out Northumberland and Durham which are not covered at all by his answer to the Question?

Wenvoe

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement concerning the progress made in the erection of the television station a Wenvoe; what shortage of materials or labour has been encountered; and whether it is anticipated that shortages will adversely affect existing plans.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. informs me that progress with the television station at Wenvoe is so far proceeding according to schedule; no shortages of consequence either of material or labour have been encountered as yet, but I cannot forecast the future.

Mr. Llewellyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what date the completion of this station is planned, unless unfortunate shortages intervene in the meantime?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think we gave a rough date of mid-1952. I do not think it will be any later on present performance, but one cannot tell the future position of labour and materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to provide the new central post office for the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and the site upon which it is to be built.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is proposed to provide for certain rebuilding in Stoke in next year's Estimates.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the new central


post office we were promised before the war? In view of the fact that it has now been decided to put this in the Estimates, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that the building is constructed as soon as possible?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There are five lots of building going on in Stoke for the Post Office. It seems to me that Stoke is getting its fair share.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to improve the postal facilities in the Meir, Blurton, Fenton and Longton areas, respectively, in the city of Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If my hon. Friend will specify what postal facilities he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Delivery of letters, etc.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have looked into that, and I find that Stoke gets the standard national deliveries and collections.

Damaged Parcels (Repacking)

Commander Noble: asked the Postmaster-General why a copy of the Bucharest organ of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers Parties, dated 15th June, 1951, was received in London in a damaged parcel from New Zealand incorrectly addressed, and forwarded by his Mount Pleasant branch on 5th July, reference X10258; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Newspapers found to be undeliverable in the post have been used to a limited extent as protective material when damaged parcels have been re-packed. The use of the journal referred to in this case for this purpose was entirely fortuitous. Since, however, it is not practicable to discriminate in the selection of newspapers used for packing purposes, and the amount of ordinary packing material which would be required is small, I have arranged for the present practice to cease.

Commander Noble: Does the Minister's answer really mean that he went into the matter and found out exactly who put this paper into this parcel?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, we were unable to discover which sorter did this.

Registration Service

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General what is the net operating profit arising from registration fees on the parcel and letter service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The inland letter and parcel registration service is operating at a loss.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing cost of commodities, he will consider extending the cover now granted under the letter and parcel registration service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret that I cannot agree to extend the limits of compensation payable.

Mr. Shepherd: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this registered service operating at a loss with the fact that the private insurance companies will insure a parcel for ld. to cover a £2 claim, whereas he charges 4d.?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a national amenity and is available all over the country. I have taken the advice of the Post Office Advisory Council, on which sit hon. Members from both sides of the House, and they were agreed that I should not extend the rate of compensation.

Christmas Cards (Postage)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider granting the concession of allowing greetings cards to be sent for ld. instead of 1½. during the Christmas period.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir; it would be impracticable to single out Christmas greeting cards for such a concession.

Mr. Crouch: Would it not be practicable to permit all mail to be sent at the 1d. rate in the 14 days before Christmas? The amount of commercial mail in that period is exceedingly small, and this would be a concession to the old-age pensioners who cannot afford to send cards to all their friends at the present rate.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to make a gesture of that sort, but I must point out to the House that the 1½. rate is already un-remunerative, and I do not think I ought to single out Christmas greeting cards for special treatment.

Savings Bank (Secrecy)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General whether he now proposes to remove the words Strict Secrecy Observed from the first page of future issues of Post Office Savings Bank books; and to amend existing books accordingly.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as the result of Section 24 of this year's Finance Act this state of affairs is no longer accurate? Is it not a somewhat serious matter to ask for subscriptions from the public under conditions which are no longer applicable?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that it is now Section 27 which is concerned. If these words were removed there might be room for unauthorised disclosures. I think the public is well aware as a result of the words now used that no unauthorised disclosures will take place.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend resist the persistent pressure from the Opposition to protect tax dodging?

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Would it not be better to alter the words to "No unauthorised disclosures will take place"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It would mean reprinting all the books. I will certainly consider the suggestion when a reprint is due.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if people resident in the City of Stoke-on-Trent have been allowed, since 1945, the increased telephone facilities, as provided for other parts.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. Since 1st July, 1945, 2,455 telephones have been added in the Stoke area. Further extensions of equipment are in progress and should become available in about 12 months.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increased demand, which is very considerable, is due in part at least to the fact that in this area there is increasing prosperity and industrial

activity, and will he give special consideration to this in view of the fact that we expect this to continue?

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the provision of telephone facilities of the South Bank and the Festival Gardens has affected telephone facilities in Stoke-on-Trent?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The telephone facilities provided at the South Bank are very remunerative.

Overcharging

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Postmaster-General what redress a telephone subscriber has when he is charged for a call which he did not make, or for a longer period of conversation than actually took place, in cases in which the Post Office authorities do not concede the accuracy of his contentions resisting the imposition of a charge.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am satisfied that the subscriber is safeguarded by the practice described in my reply of 4th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison).

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (VERY HIGH FREQUENCY)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Postmaster-General the names of the members of the special scientific committee which has been examining the problem of very high frequency; and on what recommendations he has been advised not to come to any conclusion until he has had further reports about the recently-discovered new developments.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), on 25th of July.

Mr. Profumo: But those answers do not say anything. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that nobody in the B.B.C. or in the radio industry has the slightest idea what these developments could possibly be, and they are extremely sceptical indeed. Does he not think that although he has come to the conclusion that he must make no further advance in V.H.F. until the facts of development have been worked out—

Mr. Ness Edwards: indicated dissent.

Mr. Profumo: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day. Does he not think it would be worth while at this stage to let the radio industry know what the developments are, so that development and research can be speeded up more than if he holds it in his own hands?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I feel that I ought not to be pressed further. There are commercial interests of one system as against another, and in this matter there is considerable commercial rivalry. I must try to find what is the best system for this country.

Mr. Profumo: How can there be commercial rivalry when nobody in the industry seems to have any idea of these developments? They do not know; neither do the B.B.C.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows the commercial rivalry between amplitude modulation and frequency modulation, and in this field there is great rivalry on the part of two great combines. I am trying to find the best system for this country?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Would my right hon. Friend consider making some general announcement before we debate the Charter of the B.B.C., as development of this kind is bound to influence the opinion of the House on the future of broadcasting?

Mr. Ness Edwards: A very full statement will be made about this matter in the annual report of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Profumo: I have no desire to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to quote his own words, when he said:
 Research has discovered an entirely new consequence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1951; Vol. 490; c. 1547.]
That can have nothing to do with commercial rivalry, and what is the new consequence which has led him to believe that he should go no further in the development of V.H.F.? Will he tell the radio industry what the new consequences are so that it can go ahead with V.H.F.?

Mr. Ness Edwards: V.H.F. will go forward. What I said was against a

declaration on the part of the Post Office as to whether or not amplitude modulation should have preference over frequency modulation. A certain matter has arisen and, because of that, I want to give further consideration to it.

Mr. Snow: Will my right hon. Friend resist demands from Members opposite to disclose commercial secrets?

Mr. Profumo: In view of the muddled thinking—[Interruption.]—and of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, after the Recess, if there is a Government in office with whom to raise it.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gammans.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On 26th July I handed in at the Table Question No. 72. It was addressed to the Prime Minister. As the Question affects three Ministries—the Treasury, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Civil Aviation—and involves something like £15 million of taxpayers' money, is it right that this Question should have been relegated from the Prime Minister to a junior Minister? I was notified from 10, Downing Street, only yesterday that this Question had been so transferred.

Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with me. I have no power whatsoever. I cannot help it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OFFICERS, PAKISTAN

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive a reply to the protest which he has made to Pandit Nehru regarding the allegations made against British officers in the service of Pakistan; and if he will undertake to publish in due course the whole correspondence.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): On instructions from the Government, the Acting High Commissioner for the United Kingdom at Delhi made strong representations about the views which Mr. Nehru expressed in the course of a speech on 16th July. I greatly regret that Mr. Nehru should have lent the weight of his authority to such unfounded allegations.
I have no doubt that British advisers and officers at present in the employment of the Pakistan Government are loyally serving that Government, just as their colleagues in India are loyally serving the Government of India. I am satisfied that there is no truth in suggestions which have been made that certain senior British ex-officers who have recently visited Pakistan on private business have taken part in military planning discussions or similar military activities.
As to the last part of the Question, it would be contrary to established practice to publish the details of communications exchanged with another Commonwealth Prime Minister.

Mr. Gammans: Would it not have been more appropriate if the Prime Minister had made a public defence of these officers as soon as that allegation was made, and not wait until a Question was put on the Order Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Queensland Scheme (Crops)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he can make a further statement on the harvest of sorghum and other crops grown this season by the Queensland-British Food Corporation; if he is satisfied that all is going well with the pig and cattle departments; and if he has yet had further consultations with the Queensland Government about the future of the whole enterprise.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): The sorghum harvest is expected to yield about 10,000 tons, of which 9,800 tons had been harvested when the Corporation sent their last report. The yield of sunflowers on the small acreage sown has not been encouraging. I know of nothing to suggest that there is anything unsatisfactory about the pig and cattle departments.
I have had no recent consultations with the Queensland Government about the future of the enterprise; but the Corporation is, of course, in constant contact with the two Governments concerned. I should add that I am in touch with the Chairman of the Board, and I shall

shortly be having detailed talks with him about some aspects of the future of this undertaking.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister think it would be prudent to prepare the mind of the Queensland Government with our desire to withdraw from this unnecessary state enterprise while there is still something in the kitty?

Mr. Webb: That is a much wider question. We are certainly not thinking of withdrawing.

Condemned Pork, Smithfield

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food how much fresh pork was condemned as unfit for human consumption at Smithfield during the week ended 21st July; if he will outline the circumstances which led to this condemnation; and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of this waste of food.

Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the condemnation of about seven and a half tons of pork out of two consignments sent to Smithfield from the West of England on 20th July. Transfers from producing to consuming areas are, of course, quite normal and, so far, the precautions taken to keep meat sent from the West of England in good condition have proved satisfactory. On this occasion, however, the weather was exceptionally and unexpectedly hot. Following inquiry into the incident, arrangements have been made for all pork for London from the west to be cold stored for at least 48 hours before being despatched.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Minister agree that the pork was loaded at Chippenham into vans on the morning of 19th July and was not unloaded at Smithfield until the morning of 20th July, when it was quite unusable? Is not this the sort of thing that happens when there is an absence of the profit and loss motive?

Mr. Webb: Even with the profit and loss motive, English weather in the end always gets its own reward.

Mr. H. Strauss: Which surprises the right hon. Gentleman more, a hot summer or a cold winter?

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVIDEND LIMITATION

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech on 28th July by the Minister of Local Government and Planning on the effect of the freezing of dividends represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: I did not understand my right hon. Friend's observation to be a statement of policy.

Mr. Arbuthnot: When an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this statement:
 My friend Gaitskell's speech, whatever else it has done, has thrown the Stock Exchange into complete disorder, and that's good fun, anyhow,
what interpretation does the Prime Minister put upon it other than that the Government regard it as good fun deliberately to throw the Stock Exchange into complete disorder? Does not the Prime Minister think that this Government cynicism betrays a careless disregard for the thousands of small investors who have been so badly affected by it?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of publicly dissociating himself from the observations made by his colleague?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I am quite willing to answer, but I gathered that other hon. Members opposite wanted to put further questions. I was asked whether this was a statement of policy. It is not a statement of policy. It is a remark made, I should gather, in the way of a humorous observation.

Mr. Donnelly: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the statement of the Chairman of the Penguins, published in this morning's newspapers? Will he take steps to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the letter that the Chairman of the Stock Exchange has published so that hon. Members have some light reading in the Summer Recess?

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that in whatever vein of humour this observation may have been cast—and that we find very difficult to accept—the observation has caused

great upset in very important financial circles and is creating the impression that the Government treat these matters of the financial integrity of the City of London and other places with levity? Will he take this opportunity of making a responsible statement on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I really cannot believe that people have so little sense of humour as to take a remark, which was obviously thrown out by way of a joke, as a serious matter at all. I really think, judging from what I know of the members of the Stock Exchange, that they have a more vivid sense of humour than that.

Mr. Henry Strauss: If the Prime Minister thought that that remark of his right hon. Friend was funny, does he not think that the remark was sufficiently disgraceful to win promotion for the right hon. Gentleman in His Majesty's present Government?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the miners in my constituency could not sleep last night because of this?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the Prime Minister himself regard his right hon. Friend's remark as funny?

Mr. Jennings: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most successful part of is Majesty's Government's policy is the nationalisation of poverty in this country?

Mr. R. A. Butler: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fall of share values amounting to many millions as a result of the recent announcement of Government policy, and how he proposes to restore confidence,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I understand that the industrial ordinary share index has declined since Thursday by six points, or about 4½ per cent. I cannot agree that from the point of internal financial stability this decline, following as it did upon a rise of 17 points—or over 12 per cent.—in the last three and a half months is undesirable. Both the rise in share values and the sharp increases in dividends which gave rise to it had inflationary consequences. The proposal to limit dividends during the period of re-armament, which I announced last Thursday, is in-


tended to check these consequences, which would clearly have become even more serious had they continued, and will thus help to maintain confidence in our ability to win the battle against inflation.

Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people of modest means—pensioners, widows, and others—[Interruption.] I say this partly in answer to an observation made about his mining constituents by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—there are many people of these modest means whose holdings have been very much reduced as a result of both the manner and the method of the Chancellor's announcement of Government policy a few days ago? What psychological value does the right hon. Gentleman think he has so far gained from the nature of his operation?

Mr. Gaitskell: From the figures I have given, it is clear that the decline in values is only about one-third of the rise in values that had taken place beforehand. I cannot agree that persons who invest their money over a long term need necessarily suffer any damage from the decision we have made.
It is, after all, only a proposal that dividends should be maintained, and not increased, over the period of re-armament. Those who are prepared to hold their shares for that time clearly need suffer no disadvantage so far as the value of the shares is concerned. As for speculators, I do not think we need worry too much about them. As to the further part of the supplementary question, I certainly think that the decline in stock market values, which, as I have said, is of a relatively modest character, has already had valuable disinflationary consequences on the economy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Chancellor tell us how his first reply would affect the well-known firm of Courtauld's?

Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman publicly dissociate himself from the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning?

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt very adequately with that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that the directors of Scotch whisky companies are so disgusted about this that they are threatening to sell their shares and go to work in the coal mines?

Mr. Jennings: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that his action was obviously put forward as a sop to the T.U.C. and will have no disinflationary effect on the country at all?

Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the return to ordinary shareholders in public companies in recent years, together with the capital increment due to the increase of share values, has been greatly in excess of either the interest or risk involved in the holdings?

Sir John Mellor: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the companies which have been most adversely affected by his statement are those which have been most moderate in their dividend declarations during the last few years?

Mr. Gaitskell: The fall in share values, of course, on the whole has been greater in respect of those companies which increased their dividends most.

Sir J. Mellor: Is that not very unfair?

Sir Richard Acland: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the rise in share values which took place until his announcement, at a time when many people were suffering an enormous diminution of income owing to re-armament, is something the Opposition seemed to think was quite all right and about which they would have done nothing?

Sir Ian Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that only rich people are affected is quite untrue and that within the last year Parliament has given powers to many bodies, including the Miners' Superannuation Fund and other workmen's funds, to invest in equity shares, and that, therefore, an action of this kind affects the interests of all classes, including the working class and miners?

Mr. Gaitskell: These figures of the distribution of property do not bear out any suggestion that ordinary shares are held in large quantities by the poorer sections of the community.

Brigadier Clarke: How much money was lost to the Treasury in Death Duties due to the fall caused by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and will he look into it?

SLAUGHTERHOUSES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House what plans the Government have for slaughterhouses.
The House is aware that to meet the urgent need for more slaughterhouses, we have decided to build seven new ones in addition to the two experimental ones at Fareham and Guildford. We shall extend this emergency building programme as fast as we can, but, as will be realised, our building resources will not let us do all we want.
In any case, these new slaughterhouses must be of the right sort and in the right places. I have, therefore, during the past few weeks consulted the organisations concerned to see if it would be possible to prepare a national plan for slaughterhouses which could fit into any of the alternative long-term schemes for the distribution of meat and livestock, which are now being considered by the Government.
There is the one extreme of a few factory-type abattoirs of the kind used in North and South America, and there is the other extreme of a return to the pre-war system of slaughtering in thousands of places, some with good conditions and some with very bad. Having considered all the views put to us, the Government have decided that the requirements of hygiene, meat inspection, humane slaughtering and economy, will best be met by a plan that lies between these extremes. Such a policy, which we might call one of moderate concentration, will require some central regulation of slaughtering, and a national plan for siting the slaughterhouses.
While the Ministry of Food continues to control livestock and meat distribution, as at present, it will remain the authority for regulating slaughtering, and in conjunction with other Departments and interested organisations will immediately establish machinery for considering the

location and general administration of the necessary slaughterhouses. Separate arrangements will be made for dealing with the special needs of Scotland.
Many slaughterhouses are owned and managed by local authorities, Co-operative Societies and private traders. The Government hope that this will continue, and will do what they can to encourage the building of new ones by local authorities, or by any suitable organisations of producers or traders who may be prepared to build provided they do so in accordance with the general scheme.
These arrangements, of course, apply to slaughterhouses used mainly for sheep and cattle. There will also be a need to expand our capacity for dealing with pigs, and my Department is now discussing with the organisations concerned how we can best meet this and relate it to the general plan.
The Government are not committed to any particular number of slaughterhouses or to any particular size, design, or siting. These will be left to be determined as the plan is worked out to suit the different needs of different areas. The House must not expect any sudden revolution in this matter. With our present limited resources the plan will take some years to put into operation. I hope, however, that it will be agreed that we are proceeding as fast as we can on the right lines.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: With regard to the type and standard of slaughterhouses the Government propose to erect, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advice of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has been taken in this matter, as distinct from any advice his Department may have received from professional veterinary surgeons?

Mr. Webb: I could not say whether it has been taken so far, but I should be quite happy to take it in the later stages of the operation.

Mr. Hurd: Will the slaughterhouses for the time being be operated by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and is he making emergency arrangements for this immediate autumn to have slaughter arrangements for cattle coming off grass?

Mr. Webb: For the time being, they will be operated by my Department, as they must while rationing continues, but we are making emergency arrangements to deal with the exceptional difficulties of this autumn.

Mr. Mitchison: Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that he will now entertain applications from local authorities who happen to be in need of additional slaughtering facilities and that such applications can and should be made with promptitude?

Mr. Webb: We are constantly entertaining them and will entertain more. It does not necessarily mean we shall accept every one of them. We shall have to consider all these competing claims in relation to this general plan, but it would be a good thing if any local authority which has ideas about this would put in a plan.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to take the advice of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: At the same time, will he take advice on the conditions in existing slaughterhouses, where there is very much room for improvement?

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the up-to-date slaughterhouses under the control of local authorities are being fully used, because Liverpool has been making complaints for some time that its facilities have not been properly and fully used, although there is a very modern and up-to-date slaughterhouse?

Mr. Webb: It is true that quite a number of modern slaughterhouses are not being used because of the absence of labour. That is one of the difficulties— [An HON. MEMBER: "Absence of meat."] Oh no; we have had the meat, but not the labour to process it in certain areas. Having announced this new policy, what we want to work out is where Liverpool or any other area fits best into the new siting plan we are going to carry out.

Commander Maitland: I understood the Minister to refer to expanding our capacity to deal with pigs. Does that mean more bacon factories? Would he elaborate that statement? I was not quite clear.

Mr. Webb: We are in discussion with the two boards concerned, the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pig Marketing Board, about their ideas on the way we can expand their capacity to handle what we hope will be an improvement in the supply of pigs in this country.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that local authorities should put in their suggestions. Should that be to the committee which is being set up or to the Ministry?

Mr. Webb: To the Ministry.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend give special consideration to the need for much greater safety in respect of the workmen engaged, if not the animals? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still great doubt among authorities whether or not the Factory Acts apply to slaughterhouse premises, and is he aware that there is a great deal of laxity in slaughterhouses in the operation of overhead railways, steam winches and other apparatus, which is often used in a most careless fashion?

Mr. Webb: On that matter the unions constantly make representations and are able to do so. The new slaughterhouses that we are building take account of the need to protect the workers from any undue damage in this rather hazardous occupation. I think that we shall learn a good deal as we go along. We should like to have the unions co-operating with us in any aspect of this problem.

Mr. Crouch: Can the Minister state where it is suggested there shall be additional slaughterhouses. He mentioned Guildford and Fareham as two centres. Is he in a position to say where any of the others are likely to be?

Mr. Webb: I cannot say offhand. They are listed and available, and I will let the hon. Member know. They are on record.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Has consideration also been given to the allocation of slaughterhouses for horses which are at present rather over-concentrated in my own constituency, to the distaste of the population?

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that that does not arise on this question.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister aware that if his Department had resisted the efforts of the R.S.P.C.A. and the Labour Party about undue centralisation, this problem would never have arisen?

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Opposition are calling for more slaughterhouses, as they have on many occasions called for other things that could have been done previously, this matter could have been dealt with over a number of years before the war by the Opposition, when labour and materials were available?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 16TH OCTOBER—Debate on the new Valuation Lists.

WEDNESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER—Debate on Fuel Production.

It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Thursday, 18th October, and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 23rd October.

I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should be necessary in the public interest.

Sir Ian Fraser: Could the Home Secretary give us an assurance that if there is a General Election this House will meet for Prorogation preceding the Dissolution? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the precedents suggest that Parliament should meet and that Dissolution should not take place without Prorogation preceding it?

Mr. Ede: Parliament will meet if such an event 'should occur—and this is not to be taken as a prophecy. If such an event should occur Parliament will meet to prorogue.
Proceedings on the Motions standing in the name of Mr. Clement Davies relating to the Report from the Committee of Privileges [26th July] and on the Motions standing in the name of Mr. Secretary Ede relating to the Report from the Committee of Privileges [18th July] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Ede.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Ede.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 16th October.— [Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE (EQUIPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

4.7 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield): The Opposition is glad to have an opportunity to debate equipment in the Royal Air Force. We had a lengthy debate earlier in the year dealing with the Air Estimates, but many of us felt that a number of questions were not adequately or sufficiently answered on that occasion. The Minister of Defence, in his speech, said that air strength was to be given first priority in our defence system. We welcomed that statement We think it is right that if we are to rearm it is essential for air defence to be given the main priorities of production and scientific equipment.
We are concerned at certain deficiencies that exist in the equipment in the Air Force. In the remarks I shall make, particularly in regard to the Hastings aircraft, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me in any way biased because of my connection with the aircraft industry, because I have held similar views for many years.
We believe that there are insufficient transport aircraft in the Royal Air Force. In the spring of last year, the Government thought fit to cancel the orders for transport aircraft with Handley Page and Vickers aviation as a means of economy. We did not agree because we felt that for a country with a comparatively small number of men under arms it is vital to be able to move them, if necessary, to all parts of the world at the quickest possible speed. The Korean war started in July, 1950, and the Government went back on their previous decision and replaced the orders for that type of transport in the autumn of that year. Much

time was lost. Men were paid off, certainly in one of the factories, and drifted into other industries.
I cannot stress to much the question of mobility. It is very important, I believe, to move men at the greatest possible speed. Only recently, when the Airborne Brigade were moved to Cyprus, they travelled in an aircraft carrier or two. I wonder what the Russians and the Persians really thought of that manœuvre. This great Power, Britain, wanted to move a comparatively small number of men to the Eastern Mediterranean, and took 10 days to do so.
If we are to maintain our industrial position, we recognise that not all the obligations to the Services can be carried out. But we have a duty in the British Commonwealth of Nations and in the world to play a lead, and not always to tag on to our United States friends for their assistance. We cannot afford to allow soldiers, sailors and airmen to spend weeks and weeks aboard troopships in carrying out their postings and travels to the Far East and other countries.
Many men are only in the Services for two years. Approximately three months of that time could be saved either for service or for additional training, were they to travel by air on all occasions. We ought to have learned our lesson in the early years of the war. It is well known that in 1939 when we moved the fighter squadrons of the Expeditionary Air Force to France—and I had the honour to command one of them—we had a few transport aircraft from Imperial Airways and a really mixed bag quite incapable of doing the job required of them.
We went through the war, or the biggest part of it, without a proper Transport Command. We never really caught up in that sphere. There was no alternative during the war but to accept American transport aircraft. The Americans concentrated on large transport aircraft, and we concentrated on fighters and bombers. We played our part in the war. Nevertheless, when hostilities ceased, this country was at a disadvantage. We lacked that knowledge which is required to build a large aeroplane. We had not got the knowledge in the industry. We had to start almost from scratch in design and manufacture.
Building a successful large aircraft is not just a question of designing an aeroplane and saying that in two or three


years it will be in service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend know perfectly well that a great deal of work is involved in the ancillary gear which goes into an aeroplane. It is the hydraulics and the electrical work which complicate the problem. It has taken five or six years to educate the subcontractors to play their part in the industry so that we can build our own transports. In fact, it is only at this stage that the industries are working together to carry out this important rôle. Are we know to throw all this knowledge and know-how overboard? Are we to throw it away and cease to build any military transports at all?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me recently that at a future date we might have four-engined jet transport aircraft. We have tried to get an elucidation of that statement from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, but we have made no progress at all. It was a vague statement to make to the House. It did not make any impression at all on those of us who are concerned about the lack of transport aeroplanes.
Work on the Vickers Valetta and the Handley Page Hastings is almost completed. It is only a question of weeks before the jigs will be dismantled. If we are to have aircraft quickly, it is essential to place contracts reasonably soon, even for existing types. We were told months ago that we should have a number of auxiliary transport squadrons. So far we know of one. The others are under consideration. But why is that matter taking so long to consider when we need these squadrons desperately?
We are confronted with the possibility of another airlift out of Berlin. Britain will again be unable to play its proper part in that operation, should it unfortunately come about, because we have insufficient aircraft. We should like to know why this branch of the Service has been, and continues to be, neglected. We recognise that fighters have to come first; but if the Government had had a clearer policy two or three years ago on all these matters, men would not have been dispersed into other parts of the industry and into different industries altogether.
We should like the Minister to clarify the position about the suggestion that we may obtain some Fairchild Packets, which

are large transport aircraft, from the United States. That may be a good move as an interim measure. The information I have about this American aircraft is that its all-up weight is 64,000 lb., but it is allowed to fly with a special overload weight of 74,000 lb.; that is, with a payload of 18,400 lb., for 500 miles.
It will readily be seen that this is not a long-distance aircraft. It is really a close-support transport aircraft. The Hastings with a pay load of 18,330 lb.— only 70 lb. less—has double the range of 1,000 miles. I recognise that the Packet has got rear loading, and that was undoubtedly one of the specifications of the Air Ministry. But a Hastings specification was submitted to the Government over 12 months ago offering rear loading and the raising of the tail plane of an aeroplane which had been tried and was already in production. I understand, however, that very little interest was shown in this project in the last 12 months. A mock-up was made, and this aircraft could undoubtedly have done the job for which we are now considering other aircraft. On 27th July, "The Times" said:
In consequence of the Persian crisis the R.A.F. ambulance aircraft service between Korea and Britain has been cancelled. Since all available transport aircraft were concentrated at Middle East airfields to evacuate British subjects from Persia no ambulance aircraft has completed the flight. At present there are 86 wounded British, South African,. French, Belgian, and Dutch troops at the R.A.F. hospital, Changi, and the British military hospital, Singapore. It is understood that more British Commonwealth and European casualties are awaiting evacuation in hospitals in Japan. The transport aircraft which arrived there today and is returning tomorrow will take 28 men, but there is little hope of the regular service being resumed in the near future.
When we read a statement of that kind, we consider that our men who are fighting gallantly in Korea are suffering unduly because their transportation to Britain is delayed, as we have not got the aircraft, and maybe the crews, to bring them here. Therefore, I think that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this question today.
We think that Transport Command is an important part of the Royal Air Force. Through the generosity of the Americans, we have the B.29 heavy bomber known as the Washington. I understand that all 70 or 75 of these aircraft are in service, but I should like to know whether the


Service is equipped with adequate spares to maintain these aircraft. Is the Service getting the requisite number of hours' flying duty from these aircraft which the Minister thought would be obtained?
These are points of real concern, because we have not got a heavy bomber of our own manufacture. We in this small island will be in a very dangerous position if hostilities occur, and the Royal Air Force will be the first Service to throw its weight into our defence. The other Services have to be adequately armed, but they will follow at a later date. The Air Force must be armed if we are to defend this island properly.
I should like the Minister to tell us something about United States jet fighters. The only information I have is from the "New York Times" of 29th July. I will quote only one paragraph which was written by Mr. Benjamin Welles, the London correspondent. Referring to the American Sabre fighter, he writes:
 Britain has been seeking for months to obtain about 400 Sabre fighters to tide over the Royal Air Force until its own two new jets, the Supermarine F.1 and the Swift and Hawker F.3, can come into production. Both of these planes are rated highly, but neither will be available in strength before 1953.
We all know that newspaper correspondents can be inaccurate, and we should like to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. We were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of last year that the Chief of Air Staff, Sir John Slessor, was going to Washington to discuss the problem of the R.A.F. obtaining Sabre fighters. Here we are at 1st August, and still the country knows nothing about this project at all. It just is not good enough. The taxpayers are voting large sums of money for the Government, and, though I imagine that it is being spent, we do not see the equipment forthcoming in sufficient quantity. I hope the Minister will give us some more information on that subject.
I recognise, as we all do, that the R.A.F., which was run down just as much as were the other Services after the war, has built itself up into a fine machine. The morale is high and, if they were called upon, I am quite certain that the pilots and aircrews would acquit themselves admirably. I have no doubt about that, provided that they have equipment which is comparable to that of the other side.
We have discussed in this House at Question time and at other times the subject of accidents in the R.A.F. In my view, there have been far too many in Fighter Command. We read of them almost daily, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman took me up on one occasion when he said that, as far as he knew, the details of accidents had never been published. I do not know whether he has had time to go into it or not, but I can assure him that, up to the beginning of the last war, details were published in the daily Press of all accidents in the R.A.F., and I do not see why the country should be denied that information today. The people are able to read about the accidents in the newspapers, but they do not see the tabulated statistics. It is far better to tell the country what is going on, because parents may become very sceptical, and that is one of the reasons why they may withhold their consent from their sons who wish to make the R.A.F. a career.
We understand from the Press that a statement has been made by General Vandenberg that neither this country nor America has a fighter aircraft in service which is comparable to the MIG.15. General Vandenberg said, a few weeks ago:
 The Russian jet fighter MIG.15 is far superior to American fighters, and the engines in them are better than anything the United States has at present. American and British experts are collaborating to produce something better and are doing everything possible. The engine in the MIG.15 is a very marked improvement on the Nene, which the British had sold to them.
I shall not go into this question of the sale of jet engines to Russia, because that is past history and we have to make the best of it, but we are concerned as to what the performance of the MIG.15 really is. We read of these comments by an American general, and we read details in the technical papers and in the daily Press. Why cannot we be told? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said quite recently that it is because of security reasons. If he tells us about the MIG.15, is he telling us anything that the Russians do not know? I cannot for the life of me see why we should not be told, and why the country cannot be told, more details about the performance of these fighter aircraft.
We were told in the Press last week that the Hawker P.1067 had successfully


carried out its first flight. We are delighted to know that, and we congratulate both the makers and the test pilot on this fine achievement, but when will they be in the squadrons? When will the fighter squadrons be equipped with these machines, because the Meteors and Vampires which have given excellent service are not new aircraft in design, but are rapidly becoming out-of-date, so far as performance is concerned. We should also like to know, concerning the Sabre aircraft, whether the armament is satisfactory, because it is no good having an aircraft that can climb to 45,000 feet in a very short time if it has not got sufficient armament to do the job when it gets there. Is it intended to fit British armament, or to re-design that part of the aircraft?
Another subject which we have discussed in this House is in regard to intermediate trainers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will enlarge on that subject. He has had great experience in the Royal Air Force, and I am quite sure he will make a useful contribution as far as intermediate trainers are concerned. This is an important matter, because, if pilots are to receive a proper training, they cannot go straight on to Vampires and Meteors from basic training aircraft. We should also like to know whether the Vampire two-seater is being considered as an intermediate trainer, because, if so, we think that would be an admirable step forward.
We are also concerned about electronics in the Service, but I will leave that subject to my hon. Friend, and I would only ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that the radar chain on the East Coast is progressing. Is he satisfied that the North-East Coast is now covered, and, if not, can he say when it will be covered by radar?
Parliament is going into Recess tomorrow until the middle of October, which is a tricky time of the year, and we would like to be assured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on all these various points. We do not ask for details where security considerations arise, but we consider that the country is entitled to know, and I think the Debate will have been well worth while if the right

hon. and learned Gentleman can give some more information to the House on these subjects.

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has put his case very thoroughly and very properly, because all those who are interested in the Royal Air Force would agree that, whatever view we may take of the progress that is being made, there is certainly no cause for complacency on the part of any of us. With a technical service like the Royal Air Force, and considering all the difficulties encountered in the design and development of any modern type of aeroplane, we are always a little behind in seeking perfection, and I am not going to suggest for a moment that the R.A.F. today has attained anything like perfection.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the position is very much better than it was three, four or five years ago. We have got out of the run-down period, and entered into what I ventured, on one occasion in this House, to call the building up of the third Air Force, without in any way seeking to divorce that from the first or the second Air Force. There is nothing to be complacent about at the present moment, but at the same time I do not suggest that we have not got a number of problems still to deal with.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt, in the first place, with Transport Command. He said that we had an insufficient number of transport aircraft. I suppose it would be very difficult to say what would be a sufficient number. Certainly those who advise me would not agree that in peace-time we should maintain a vast armada of air transports, especially during a period when we are seeking to build up to the fullest possible extent the aircraft of Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands. That may be wrong, but that is the view that is taken.
I am not going to suggest that we have a large number of transport squadrons. It would be wrong for me to do so. It was only last year that I informed the House that, for reasons of the economy which was prevalent at that time, it had been decided that, rather than restrict


the building up of Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands, to some extent we should accept a lower Transport Command. Then we had the development as the result of the expansion programme. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not agree with me when I say that the orders which we have placed have been related to the maximum production capacity of the aircraft industry of the country. I may say that we have already placed orders for aircraft and ancillary equipment for an amount exceeding £500 million.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should concentrate upon utilising the aircraft industry of this country to the fullest possible extent for the production of modern fighters, bombers and land-based sea reconnaissance machines like the Shackleton, and he supported his argument by reference to the fact that we have reduced Transport Command very considerably. But when we fixed the number of squadrons in relation to Transport Command, we bore in mind the reserve potential that we can obtain from civil aviation.
Therefore, in an emergency we would look upon the available transport resources as comprising not only the front long-range and medium-range transport squadrons of the Royal Air Force, but also the aircraft of the Corporation and the various charter companies. It is quite untrue to say that the Parachute Brigade were sent to Cyprus in an aircraft carrier because the Royal Air Force were unable to move them by air. We were not asked to do so.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not the Minister agree that had they been transported by air instead of by ship it would have made a far greater impression in Persia?

Mr. Henderson: In the light of subsequent events, I do not think so. Had it been a matter of hours, or, possibly, of two or three days, I have no doubt those responsible for moving the troops would have taken that point into consideration.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Air Ministry were not asked to move the Parachute Brigade to Cyprus. Will he say whether, had they been asked to do so, they would have been able to do so? That is the point.

Mr. Henderson: My answer to that is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The Minister's argument does not seem very convincing. If we have plenty of transport aircraft, why cannot we continue to operate the ambulance service for evacuating wounded from Korea?

Mr. Henderson: I did not say that we had plenty of aircraft. Incidentally, the reduction in Transport Command only affects the squadrons in this country. There has been no reduction in the number of squadrons in the Far and Middle East; they remain as they were a year ago. The hon. Gentleman's point is quite a fair one, but I believe that the ambulance service has, in fact, been resumed today. It is a matter of great regret that for some reason or another it was decided to take off the aircraft operating that ambulance service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they were carrying out their work on the scheduled routes. The stopping of that service was not really essential, and, as I have said, it is now being resumed.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then went on to say that we ought not always to be dependent upon our American friends for assistance in the matter of aircraft. He applied that remark, I think, not only to the possibility of obtaining transport aircraft from the United States, but also to obtaining the F.86's, and he wanted to know why all this delay was taking place. I hope he is not suggesting that, if we are able to obtain aircraft from the United States under military aid we should be reluctant to accept them, especially in view of the fact that we are now spending 13 per cent. of our national income on a vast three-year re-armament programme. We have done that in the past, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman possibly knows. In 1938 we obtained large numbers of Harvards and Hudsons from the United States Government, and there was never any suggestion at that time that it was detrimental to the aircraft industry of this country.

Air Commodore Harvey: What I was suggesting was that if transport aircraft are not built in this country and we obtain them from America instead, this country would lose valuable technical knowledge which it has taken at least six years to acquire. We might have heavy bombers


such as the B.29's and transport and fighter aircraft, which would mean three different types of engines and would be very confusing from the servicing point of view. That is my real concern.

Mr. Henderson: What we should like to do is to replace the long-range aircraft, such as the Hastings, with jet aircraft.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then said that he had asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply whether any orders had actually been placed for these replacement transport aircraft and that the answer was "No." He seemed to think there was some inconsistency there. I never suggested that an order had been placed. We have not yet reached that stage. I do not wish to commit either the Department or myself, but it might be that one of the new four-jet bombers would be the type of plane which could be developed for transport purposes. It might be that something on the lines of the Comet would meet the case.
But we have not yet made up our minds, and the experts at the Air Ministry are at the moment considering what would be the best type of four-jet aircraft to replace the Hastings. In our view, we have sufficient reserves of Hastings for some years to come, but we cannot use those aircraft for some purposes owing to the fact that tail loading facilities do not exist in them. If we have to obtain—as we might well do—a number of the American C-119's, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, it would be because those aircraft have the facilities we require immediately, possibly as an interim measure, for the conveyance of troops.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will they be a gift?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, no charge would be made for them, as in the case of the F.86's.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to attribute some measure of blame to the Government for not having been able to conclude the discussions which I indicated were taking place with the Americans regarding the supply of F.86's. I can only repeat that that is the present position. We cannot compel them to do anything in the matter. They are themselves

launched on a great re-armament programme, and I can only say what I said before, that we are having these discussions with them, but that they have not yet indicated whether or not they will provide these aircraft. If they do, they will be additional to the vast orders for aircraft which we have placed in this country. In other words, they will not be in substitution for any aircraft ordered over here. Indeed, had there been no possibility of obtaining these machines from America, not a single additional aircraft would have been added to the vast orders placed during the last six months.
I should like to say a word or two about bombers. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member did not consider it a mistake to have taken over the Washing-tons. It has been made clear in various speeches on Estimates, both by my predecessors and myself, why, in 1945, the Air Ministry decided not to follow up the Lincoln with another piston-engined bomber but to concentrate upon the design and long-term development of a four jet-engined bomber which would be in its performance, range, altitude and load carrying capacity superior, as they hope, to anything that might come along from any other country.
I think that we have been justified in the policy we have followed, both as regards the light and the heavy bomber. The Canberra is recognised as the outstanding light jet bomber in the world today. Although it is always a matter for suspicion to hon. Members opposite because I cannot give the actual numbers of squadrons, I can say, as I said a few months ago, that the first squadron has now been formed. A large number of squadrons—I cannot say what number but it is quite a respectable number—will be formed during the next 12 months, including a number of P.R. squadrons.
According to the information supplied to me, the Valiant, the new four jetengined bomber now flying, will be superior to the Canberra in range, speed, altitude and load carrying capacity, and it is believed it will give our country the lead in the field of heavy jet bombers. As regards the new fighter to which the hon. and gallant Member referred—the new Hawker interceptor type—which has successfully carried out its first flight, this aircraft is designed not only to deal with any bomber likely to be in service for


some time to come but to be faster and have a higher performance than the Russian MIG.15 or the American F.86.
The hon. and gallant Member asked why I did not tell him the exact speed of flight of the MIG.15. I do not see how that will help him. I have been quite frank and have said that, according to the information we have, it is probably the second fastest fighter in level flight in the world today, second to the F.86; and I acknowledged that it was faster than the Meteor VII or the Vampire V, just as I equally assert that the new Hawker interceptor fighter will be faster in level flight than either the MIG.15 or the F.86.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to a jet intermediate trainer. If I may, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) because I think I misled him the other day. I said we had ordered the Vampire trainer in a context which seemed to indicate that I regarded that trainer as an intermediate trainer. We do not look upon it officially as an intermediate trainer. The question arises whether we should have an intermediate trainer. Just as do members of my own profession, the law, so do experts in air matters all differ one from the other. Experts always do, and I find that there is a difference of opinion with regard to the provision of an intermediate jet trainer.
The flying instructors do not accept the view that it is desirable, if it is possible, to introduce a slow flying jet trainer. By all means, of course, we should improve the basic trainer or the more advanced trainer. The Balliol is faster than the Harvard, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, although its speed is well below anything at which the Vampire can fly. I am told that for the beginner it is possible to moderate the speed of the Meteor, for example, to very little more than the maximum speed of the Balliol. But there is a difference of opinion whether we should have an intermediate trainer at all.
I think the hon. and gallant Member was concerned also about the absence of the Chipmunk. We are not satisfied; we have not the number we would like; but if there had been no expansion programme the number we ordered two years ago would have been adequate for present-day requirements. They are not sufficient today because we have had to

increase our training commitments and therefore that has led to a shortage. There are 118 Chipmunks in service in the Reserve flying schools today. There are 105 in the university air squadrons and 70 in the new schools provided for National Service trainees who are being trained as aircrew.
The reason we have had to send some away to training schools in Rhodesia is that they had been using the Tiger Moth, and just as the hon. and gallant Member objects to Tiger Moths being used in flying schools, so there was objection to their being used in Rhodesia. I think the House will agree with the importance of giving priority to Regular flying schools as against Reserve flying schools. But we have placed a very large order and, as I said in reply to a Question, next year we shall have more than sufficient Chipmunks for the requirements of the 20 flying schools operating today.
I know that other hon. Members want to raise other matters, but I thought it right to follow the speech of the hon. and gallant Member immediately. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be ready to reply to any other points made subsequently in this debate.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, do I understand from his last statement about trainers for the Reserve Command that he is now able to modify the statement he made in this House on 11th July to the effect that sufficient Chipmunks would be available by the end of 1953 and not before?

Mr. Henderson: I said next year, 1952.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I think it is appropriate that we should have found time before going away for the Recess to discuss the urgent problem of equipment for the Royal Air Force. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I think it is all the more important that we should have this discussion this afternoon because, with all due respect, I do not think that what he has said—I appreciate he was trying to be brief so that other hon. Members could speak—has eased the worries of my hon. and gallant Friends.
It does not need any words of mine to emphasise the significance of these problems to the whole of our defence scheme. I believe that the Minister is among the foremost Members of the House who are ready at any time to discuss any problems of the Royal Air Force. We on this side of the House recognise his devotion to the gallant Service for which he has the honour to be responsible to Parliament. But, on the other hand, the fact that he holds that privileged office carries with it the obligation of bearing the brunt of attack from hon. Members when things go wrong in the Air Force, or at least when they appear to have gone wrong. This afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that we have to direct our attacks at him, though personally we realise that he is trying to do what he can to help his Service.
One of the great difficulties which we are always up against when discussing equipment for the Royal Air Force is that this matter does not concern only the Air Ministry. It concerns also the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Defence. We would obviously not expect to have a whole line of right hon. Gentlement sitting on the Front Bench opposite representing all these various Ministries this afternoon, like a lot of war criminals ready to be cross-examined by us, but. on the other hand, I hope that the charges which I shall make will be followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and will be communicated to his right hon. Friends in the various Ministries which are concerned in these matters.
The problems which I want to raise do not affect only the Ministries I have mentioned. They also affect the Treasury, the War Office and, to some extent, the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I hope that the result of this debate will be that we shall not only get a stereotyped answer from the Under-Secretary but that my hon. Friends and I will feel that we have made some sincere contribution towards the solution of these problems and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will disseminate the information and will see whether he can work out the answers with his colleagues.
My charges are threefold. I charge the Air Ministry, first of all, with being guilty of seeking to fob off the Army with a second-rate tactical transport air-

craft. Second, I accuse them of being guilty of jeopardising the future of the British aircraft industry; and, third, I accuse them of following a policy which will tend to make us dangerously dependent on the United States of America. Here, I want to follow the point which was made so excellently by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey).
The Army requires two classes of transport aircraft. It requires the strategic type, which has already been referred to—a long-range aircraft which is able to carry troops, light stores and equipment over really considerable distances, and also what one might call the tactical type from which men and equipment can be parachuted, and which will operate over shorter distances to and from—and this is the important point—makeshift landing strips and which, therefore, requires low take-off and landing speeds.
The strategic requirements have already been discussed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we have a certain number of these strategic troop-carrying aircraft. My hon. and gallant Friend says we have not got enough. There must be some truth somewhere, and, personally, I back my hon. and gallant Friend. I fully realise that we have got this sort of aeroplane in some numbers, but we have not nearly enough. We have the Hastings and the Valetta, and those aeroplanes are backed up strategically by the airliner type of aeroplanes which fly for the civil air Corporations and also for the air charter companies, not forgetting, also, the Brabazon, which I believe might very well come in useful for those purposes. Just as in the last war the great "Queens" of the sea were brought into commission to carry our troops all over the world, so, in another war, the great "Queens" of the air could be mobilised.
Where I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has unintentionally misled the House, is in suggesting that we have enough to have done the job of carrying the airborne brigade out to Cyprus. Anybody can say "yes" to the question which my hon. and gallant Friend asked, whether the Air Force would have been capable of carrying this concentration of troops. So long as we have one aeroplane, and so long as we do not mind taking 10 years, naturally the


job can be done. But what I should like to know is how long the Royal Air Force would have taken to have carried out this commitment. I believe it would have taken longer than it took them by aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy.

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. A. Hendersonindicated dissent.

Mr. Profumo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head; I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to disillusion us in this matter when he winds up the debate.
What I especially want to talk about is the tactical type of transport aeroplane, because the Royal Air Force has, at the moment, no aircraft designed to do that sort of job at all. This is through no fault of the British aircraft industry. They have constantly offered the Air Ministry suitable types of aeroplanes, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. For example, there are the Bristol Freighter, the Blackburn Universal Freighter, the Airspeed A.S.67 and a modified Hastings with rear ramp loading.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that ramp loading is of the utmost importance, and in this case we must have an aeroplane the floor of which is sufficiently level and sufficiently close to the ground for it to be able to let down its own ramp in order to assemble and disembark large pieces of machinery and vehicles and equipment which the Army wants to move about. All the aeroplanes I have just mentioned have, in fact, got ramp loading of one sort or another.
Hon. Members can imagine my concern when, in reply to a supplementary question of mine on 11th July, the Secretary of State said—and these are his words:
I say, quite frankly, and at once, that we have not ordered the aircraft to which the hon. Member is referring. We are, however, already in touch with the Ministry of Supply on this matter, and the matter is under the active consideration of the Air Staff and of the Air Councils."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 399.]
Not only were we on this side of the House staggered by the appalling frankness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his admission that no order had even been placed, but we were also very worried by the self-satisfied way in which he said:

 We are, however, already in touch with the Ministry of Supply on this matter "—
as if this was some new and unexpected problem which had suddenly cropped up, and as if, with remarkable and commendable foresight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed such knowledge of the matter that he had jumped the gun and was already taking action.
It is all very well for him to say that he is already in touch with the Ministry of Supply. It is already too late by far. Because of his inertia it will now be several years before these aeroplanes are able to operate and be in service with the Army.
Although the Minister was more restrained and guarded than I have been in this matter, he admitted it himself in a further reply when he said:
 I cannot just wave a wand and do something about it. The production of aircraft is not something which can be done by merely placing an order, as the hon. Member knows." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 400.]
That is quite true. Nobody suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could wave a wand, but we do expect him to make a plan. During the last six years we have continually heard of the Government vaunting their planning potentialities. We have been told that this is a Government of planners. But it is the plans that we want to see. Some plans must be made without delay.
The Minister said:
 The production of aircraft is not something which can be done by merely placing an order.
That is perfectly true, but it is equally true to say that until an order is placed we shall not get the aircraft. I do not think there is any excuse for the Government on this occasion, because all the aircraft I have just referred to have either been flying or have been in advanced stages of design from one to three years. Yet the Air Ministry has done nothing about this.
The Minister disturbed me, and also amused me, when he said:
… the matter is under the active consideration of the Air Staff and of the Air Council.
and that he was in touch with the Ministry of Supply. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what that means? Nowadays, when we read in HANSARD statements by Ministers of the


Crown, we find them constantly repeating the phrase that something "is under active consideration" or else it is "under continuous review," to such an extent that one feels that one is reading an advertisement for the Windmill Theatre. I ask the Minister this sincerely and seriously: to meet our long-term requirements for these aircraft, have any aircraft of this type been ordered by the Air Ministry from the Ministry of Supply? Has an order been placed? If an order has been place, we must try to tackle the Minister of Supply.

Mr. A. Henderson: I do not want to intervene unnecessarily, but this is rather an important point. The Air Ministry are not prepared to give an order. involving perhaps many millions of pounds, except in a very grave emergency —such as we did in the case of the Canberra and the F.3 and the B.9.
In the case of the transport aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Blackburn Aircraft Company—the firm in question—which has produced the Universal Freighter, has a prototype flying and trials are now being carried out. We are not prepared to place an order until we know the results of those trials. The hon. Gentleman may have his joke about "under active consideration," but I think this is the right policy for the Air Council to follow. We must, therefore, wait until the trials are nearer completion than they are at the moment.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to his colleagues who supported him in that answer. But perhaps I may develop the point a little further because I think he may have misunderstood me. I am certainly not making a joke of this. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought I was being flippant. We think the Government are carrying these matters as far as a joke and we are very seriously concerned with the fact that nothing has been ordered. I will develop the point a little further and then perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman may take it a little better.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered the question: no order has been placed. Are we, therefore, permanently to depend on the United

States of America to supply this sort of aircraft—the tactical, troop-carrying aircraft, the only type with which I am dealing at the moment? When the Minister was dealing with this matter the other day he gave no indication whatsoever that the Government are trying to obtain the United States Fairchild Packet under M.D.P.A. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the point and the right hon. and learned Gentleman slithered over it rather neatly, in accordance with his profession.

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. A. Hendersonindicated dissent

Mr. Profumo: We want to get the truth of this problem, however, from the debate. With all respect, I think he did slither over it. The other day, I think it was on 18th July, in another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking for the Government said:
 We are so conscious of the need for transport aircraft at the present time that steps are being taken in order to try and obtain them from elsewhere.
If my information is correct, it is over 12 months since the first approach was made by His Majesty's Government to the United States in order to get the Fairchild Packets for this job. If the House will forgive me for a moment. I will explain that there are two types of Fairchild Packets: there is one called the C-82, which has an all-up weight of 54,000 lb. and there is the rather more modern C-119, which I think has an all-up weight of 74,000 lb., as no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend could confirm.
In my opinion it is very unlikely that we shall get any of these C-119's in the foreseeable future because, as far as I can gather, the United States are ordering them as fast as they come off the production lines for their own Air Force. It is much more likely that we shall be offered the older type, the C-82, from reserve stocks as and when they are rendered surplus by delivery of the C-119 to the United States Air Force.
I agree that the C-82 is better than nothing, particularly in the position in which we find ourselves today. But we must be quite certain about this point— that aeroplane does not to any appreciable extent meet the requirements of the Army, which is where the War Office comes into the picture. It cannot be landed on most grass fields and it needs a long runway


both for landing and taking off. I wonder whether I may make a short explanation by reading a report which has disturbed me very much. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have seen it. It deals with the comparison between the Fairchild Packet and our British type of aircraft.
The report is called "Aviation Report"—in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not think I have written it myself—and it says:
 If ever there was an acid test of aircraft practicability it was there for all to see at Abingdon.
There was a demonstration to the Staff College at Abingdon the other day:
 Three different types of military transport aircraft were lined up for the Army—the Fairchild C-82 Packet, the Handley Page Hastings and the Blackburn General Universal Freighter. The Army produced a load of heavy equipment.
That was quite natural. The report continues that they
 wanted to see how each of them would take it to Watchfield, un-load it, then re-load it and fly it back. Watchfield is a small grass field,
as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
The Hastings and Packet did not attempt the operation. The freighter sailed gently into Watchfield with its load, sat down in 300 yards and disgorged it. In due course it flew the load out and back to Abingdon.
It seems to me that the report alone shows that the British aircraft is superior to the American type. The Army has, quite naturally, a large list of equipment which it wants to be able to have carried by air. The Fairchild Packet is unable to load a considerable proportion of these, whereas the Blackburn Universal Freighter can carry nearly all these articles. The all-up weight of the Fairchild Packet is less than half that of the British Freighter. Let us consider what that means. It means that for every one British aeroplane we have to have two American aeroplanes. That means double crews, a double lot of pilots, double maintenance and double spare parts—and let us not forget that the spare parts have to be brought here all the way across the Atlantic.
Beggars cannot be choosers, however, and in our present position we shall have to put up with these troubles, if the Americans will give the aircraft to us for an interim period, but I ask the Minister

this: assuming that the United States agree to supply the Fairchild Packets, which type are we to be offered? Shall we be offered the C-82 or shall we be offered the C-119? Perhaps even more important, on this side of the House we should like to know whether there is any estimate of a delivery date.
Can we be certain as to how long it will take, because if it is to take two or three years we might as well put our own aeroplane on order now and have the British aircraft. How long will it take? After all, the United States Air Force are needing more and more of the products of their own aircraft industry to equip themselves—at any rate as far as combat aircraft are concerned. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman let us know how certain he is about delivery?
In a recent article—and this seems to be very ominous indeed from the point of view of our relying too closely on deliveries from the United States— General Spaatz said:
True, it has been announced that America is aiming at a 95-Group Air Force by the end of 1952, and by pulling planes out of mothballs she would have enough to equip, in numbers, a 95-Group Air Force by that date. But this would be providing an Air Force half-equipped with obsolescent planes.
That is the view of General Spaaz. His view indicates that they will need their own aircraft industry to supply their own Air Force. In those circumstances, for goodness sake let us order our own British aeroplanes.
May I take a look for a moment at the financial aspect of this problem? It is quite understandable for the air staff and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself to take the view that they want to get the maximum number of combat aircraft out of the budget which has been allocated to them, and although they accept the responsibility for providing transport aircraft for the Army they feel that if they can get these free, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls it, under M.D.A.P., it will not appear on Vote VII of the Air Estimate.
But when we talk about getting things free we should look at the matter very carefully indeed from a long-term view. That is the view which the Cabinet should take. If we look at it from that view, it is obvious that other items which are scheduled under M.D.A.P. will probably


have to be scaled down in proportion— and this is the crucial point and the point which has not been sufficiently carefully considered by His Majesty's Government before these schemes were adopted.
I think it may be that in order to get the Fairchild Packets we may have to accept fewer raw materials and machine tools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about getting things free but, as he knows, we cannot get everything from the United States. Up to a point we can get what we want, but somebody ought to be deciding which is more important. Is it more important to get these freighter aircraft or is it more important that we should get machine tools and raw materials and such things?
I believe that in this case we can have the best of both worlds. My information is that the Universal Freighter is so good that within the last four months the United States authorities have been making inquiries about it for their own Services. Here is an aeroplane which might easily accompany the Canberra into production for the U.S.A.F., but the Ministry of Supply has stopped work on the second prototype and no production order has been placed at all. Very strange—very strange indeed. We might sell the manufacturing rights to the United States, and in that case we could achieve not only standardisation of a first-class aeroplane, but we could also earn dollars, very vitally required, with which to offset the purchase of the military type aeroplanes which we must have as an interim measure. It does seem to me to warrant internally a large allocation of our defence budget.
I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this. What snags is he running up against? What snags are there? What are the technical difficulties? Who is standing in the way? Is it the War Office? I do not think it can be, because I have just shown the House that the Army are not getting a bad deal out of this. It cannot be the War Office. Is it the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member for Aryshire, South, knows about these matters. This is his subject. I am much flattered that he should be sitting here

during my speech in this debate. He has an intimate knowledge of the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps later on he will be good enough to inform us how it could be the Minister of Defence. I do not think it can be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that the Minister of Defence made a statement about the defence budget in which he said that the Royal Air Force would have absolute priority in our defence programme. If that is to be carried out it is a little inconsistent that he should say that there shall not be enough money to make the necessary aeroplanes. It cannot be he.
Can it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Really, I wonder. I hope not, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many occasions—not recently, but on many occasions—has shown a certain amount of forethought. If he really considered this matter he might realise that this was one problem—perhaps the only one—easily disposed of. We could spend a part of this vast expenditure which is extorted from the taxpayers and use it to make more money. It could be used to invest in the manufacture of British aircraft Which might be sold abroad if, fortunately as we all hope, there is not going to be war at all. I do not think it can be he.
If the sole object of our re-armament programme were to prepare for imminent war, we should not bother in this House where we were getting the aircraft from so long as we were getting them. It is not the case, however, thank goodness. The Government have said, and we agree, that war is not inevitable. The preparations are being made rather for the purpose of enabling us to negotiate from strength. If that policy is successful, or partially successful, I think we must expect to find a quite long period, an indeterminate period, of a whole series of what one might call Koreas, Berlin airlifts, and Abadans.
If we are going to keep our heads above water, far less than maintain our standard of life, then it is of paramount importance that we should keep alive and increase our export markets. In British transport aircraft we have got some to offer the world which are superior to and far less expensive than the United States of America have. It would be a major economic tragedy to the nation if we


ignored those world markets which will present themselves. But if more stable international relations should be established and the pressure of re-armament should be relaxed, as it easily may be, the British aircraft industry is going to find itself in a very difficult position in recapturing lost markets once they are lost, and that will be particularly so in the transport field.
At the present time, as the Secretary of State knows full well, civil airlines in the world are all in the process of re-equipping. If they do it with imported aeroplanes those markets will be lost to us for an indefinite period. Already certain overseas markets are being denied to us, like Egypt, and so on, from the point of view of military aeroplanes. It makes it all the more important that we should jump as quickly as possible with any types required into other markets.
I think that I have made my case. I yield to nobody—to nobody—in my gratitude to the Americans for the help with which they are providing us, but let us, remember that a permanent dependence upon such help will have very serious consequences indeed. It means that we must depend for delivery of all our vital equipment on the United States President and the United States Congress. Can we be certain—and this is the point —can we be certain that we can depend on the present scale of generosity, even if they run into a major economic slump in the United States? At this very moment we are awaiting from the United States a decision about Sabres.
The Secretary of State for War himself said the other day that we did not control the United States Government, and that the only thing we could do was to wait until we got agreement from them. So that is the situation. We have become far too dependent upon resources from the other side of the Atlantic for far too much equipment for our own British Air Force —fighters, bombers, and now transport aircraft. This means that Parliament has no longer really any control over our defences.
I notice from the Press that the party opposite to which the Minister of Defence belongs is due to have a conference in the autumn, and I see that some—indeed, quite a lot of—resolutions have been put down for this conference which deplore

the Government's subservience to Washington. We do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get into hot water if we can help it. So we warn him that this is just the sort of thing for which he and the Government will be attacked by certain of their supporters who are not here today—some of their comrades.
I want to say in conclusion that if we continue to depend on the supply of aeroplanes from America, it can only lead to the entire termination of our sovereign rights, and, indeed, to our becoming the 49th State of America.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), as I always am. It is always a mystery to me whether he is in deadly earnest or whether he is someone else doing an after dinner imitation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stratford. He did, I think, rather exaggerate in the indignation he displayed against the Government in their difficult decisions that have to be taken when we are spending so much on and developing our re-armament programme.
I do not think it is possible for anyone to put particular blame on the Government for the course of action they are taking. We know perfectly well—and my right hon. and learned Friend did not attempt and has never attempted to suggest that we can be—we know perfectly well that we cannot be satisfied with the state of our air defences. We are trying now to equip ourselves with the equipment that is immediately available and to develop the equipment, and the Government are having to decide priorities as they go along, and having to decide whether they should order more of equipment that is available or some new equipment which may be better. These are difficult decisions inherent in our present situation.
I believe that we may get into serious difficulty in this matter of Air Force equipment if we try ourselves to balance too heavily the claims of that branch or that of the Royal Air Force in which we ourselves are specially interested. The hon. Member for Stratford is undoubtedly very interested in transport aircraft. I happen to be interested in Coastal Command. The House knows that when we have these agreeable occasions such as


this every year I make a speech on behalf of Coastal Command, demanding more aircraft for it, in just the same way as other hon. Gentlemen favour Transport Command. I am afraid I may get into trouble through my own criticism if I favour Coastal Command, but I must just mention that Command again today, because the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) rather attacked me the last time we had a debate like this by saying that I was running down the Shackleton aircraft.
Since then I have had an opportunity to find out more about that aircraft. I must say straight away it was not then my intention to run it down, and certainly Coastal Command is very anxious for it. It is very pleased with what it knows of it, and the Under-Secretary of State has flown in it, and has very good experience of its three-engined performance, of which, no doubt, he will be able to tell the House. It is an aircraft which we need, and need abundantly.
Having said that, and having stressed the claims of Coastal Command, in view of all the possibilities of what may happen in a future war, and in view of the dangers of the submarine menace, whether the old type of attack on shipping communications or the delivery of atom bombs through long-range torpedoes, and so on, I still think that we need to look at our over-all strategy and consider whether we are balancing up the supplies of equipment and available resources between a number of different competing vested interests and competing minor "empires."
I am wondering whether, perhaps, we are not still following the old line too much, and whether we should not have a wider conception of the possibility of a future war. If we were faced with the possibility of an atom bomb attack, then I am sorry to say that I do not believe purely defence forces will protect this country. We must consider whether we should not, as a purely defensive measure, put the greater part of our resources into offensive weapons as the only possible type of protection against an atom bomb attack.
Everybody knows that there is not the slightest danger of this country itself initiating the use of such offensive weapons, but, with the development of

modern war and the atom bomb, I believe that we should seriously consider whether there should be the same diversion of resources into purely old-fashioned defence measures, particularly Anti-Aircraft Command—which is not, of course, part of the equipment of the Royal Air Force, but it is related to air defence—and whether we should not concentrate our resources much more in the one field which I believe might prevent another war, and might bring protection to this country, namely, the counter attack, should it be necessary. I say that with all seriousness and all sincerity.
When we urge the claims of radar, of Bomber Command, Transport Command and Coastal Command we do not really help; we do not help the Government in the very difficult decisions they have to take. Those decisions must be taken, or we shall go along too much on the old pattern, and we shall come off worse through finding that too much of our resources have been tied up in something which is not of decisive importance, and will not make the major effect at the time that we need it.
Whereas I believe it is right that the Air Force should be given the highest priority in our defence, we should at the same time be prepared for the danger of the vested interest and the "empires" within the Air Force, each demanding its share, when for lack of effort and bold and brave enough decisions there may be a tendency to give in, instead of taking what I believe may be an unpleasant but none the less right decision, that in the long-run the only possibility of defence for this country if a war should come is in the counter offensive.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) referred to trainer aircraft, and reference was also made to that subject in the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I took them both to be referring to trainer aircraft in the Regular service, and not to trainer aircraft used in the Reserve or Home Command, and I want this afternoon to put in a modest plea for aircraft for a very important scheme that has been introduced by the Air Ministry during the past 12 months, namely, the Flying Scholarship Scheme, which is sponsored by the Association of British Aero Clubs.
This year, 300 flying scholarships have been allotted to enable cadets of the Air Training Corps to take their elementary training as pilots. The cost is not inconsiderable, but if this scheme is considered to be a good one the Air Ministry should take steps to provide the equipment to enable it to be carried out properly.
The plan is for a cadet to be trained up to the civil pilot licence standard, and it is hoped that the number of flying scholarships next year will be increased to 500. Today, however, these flying clubs are working to the limit of their capacity in aeroplanes, and there is no prospect of any additional aircraft being made available to enable training to be carried out for the present numbers, let alone for any increase in number that might come along. According to my information, one of the main aircraft in use, the Anson, is in short supply due to this aircraft being used for navigational training. If that is so, we must look to some other type.
Claims have been made this afternoon from both sides of the House for new aircraft in large numbers from America and from British manufacturers. I ask the Secretary of State for something he has already got, and that is the Tiger Moth aircraft, which is at present being used in the Reserve training schools. I want him, if he will, to make that aircraft available to the flying clubs. I should prefer him to make it available free of cost, but if that cannot be done at least to make it available at a nominal charge, and to make arrangements with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to put that into effect.
The present procedure is that these aircraft are put on the market for sale by tender, and the flying clubs often have no opportunity of bidding for them. The flying clubs are voluntary organisations, and I suppose they do not feel able to send an official to the Ministry of Supply sales to bid for these machines. It is true to say that a machine which is worth a few pounds for the scrap yard, and which is often sold in that way, would be worth a great deal more if it were reconditioned and made available to flying clubs to enable cadets to receive their elementary flying training.
The Association of British Aero Clubs state that they are capable of training 750

cadet pilots a year. I submit that it is not much use having expensive aircraft in increasing numbers if we have not the men to fly them. Those men have to start at the beginning, with glider training, going on to elementary flying training and so on, and we must have these machines at the starting point in order that the scheme can work smoothly and well. If the supply of aircraft is made available, that will be of the greatest value to the Service, which would have this reserve of trained pilots. When these pilots have completed their elementary training they go on to the Volunteer Reserve, and after, or even before, their compulsory training will provide some solid service to their country.
There is no source of supply available to the flying clubs than the one I have mentioned, namely, from the Reserve flying schools, and I ask that consideration be given to this matter. I notice that in a speech which he made at Glasgow the Under-Secretary said:
 Anyone who has a stake of any kind in the future of this country must want the best of our young men to take to the air and must do all he can to encourage them.
He went on to say:
 The Government is doing its best through A.T.C. scholarships and in the help that it gives to flying clubs and gliding clubs to reduce the expense and make things easier. But the Government will be able to do much more if pressure is put upon it from every quarter.
I could not have said that better myself. I think that pressure should be put on the Government to provide increased training facilities, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make these Tiger Moths available to the A.T.C. for this purpose.

5.31 p.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), because we know the work that he has done and is doing on behalf of the Air Cadets. I hope in a few remarks to support him in asking for aircraft for training purposes.
It is just a year ago that I referred in the other Chamber, which was then our quarters, to the deplorable state of our air defences. That brought a mild rebuke from the Secretary of State for Air. I confess that it was a mild one, because I can never see the right hon. and learned


Gentleman giving more than a mild rebuke. We all respect him, and our attacks today are not necessarily directed at him. He was not at that time prepared to describe the state of our air defences.
In retrospect, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that I was not very far from the mark at that time. I would, therefore, ask him a pertinent question today. Is he now able to describe our air defences as entirely satisfactory? A year ago, the Minister definitely stated that he was not satisfied with the number and calibre of aircrew entrants. Is he satisfied today with the intake? No advance training aircraft was provided for the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve at that time. Does the Minister consider the position any more satisfactory today? He said 12 months ago:
 I agree that as soon as circumstances permit we ought to introduce more modern types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2232.]
He indicated at that time that the latest type of training aircraft were coming off the production lines "in a trickle." Since that 12 months'-old statement, the Minister of Defence has expressed the view that air strength has first priority in our defence system, and that it would be developed with all possible speed. I think that it is a very pertinent question to ask: Is the Air Force getting that priority over the other Services? There are many hon. and gallant Gentlemen on this side of the House who doubt whether the Air Force is getting that priority which was promised by the Minister of Defence.
What, then, is the position in regard to training aircraft? Harvards which were in use in 1939 are still in use and no single Balliol has yet been in service in our training schools. I am aware that a small number are in use in Fighter Command for air-firing training. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the air training schools will have Balliols this year? And in what numbers shall we receive them? Will it be a trickle? It has taken the Minister's Department some time to recognise that the step from the less-than-200 miles per hour Harvards to the near-600 miles per hour Meteors is far too steep. He has indicated today that there is some division of opinion among experts and

suggested that the jets might be flown at a lesser speed. But is this to be recommended? The enterprise of the De Havilland Aircraft Company in developing the side-by-side seating dual Vampire should be acknowledged by the Minister. If these were brought into general use, it would mean economy of effort in the Royal Air Force and also economy of production in industry.
In regard to the Reserve Command, the Government have been constantly pressed for the past three years to provide an advanced trainer. When will these reserve schools have adequate aircraft? I think that the Minister ought to tell us that. If more Vampires could be provided for advanced regular training, then Balliols could be made available for the Reserve schools. This would mean that we should get more ex-war service pilots to join the Volunteer Reserve because flying practice would then be well worth while, and we could form from them, I hope, a pool of instructors for use in time of need. The work of the reserve schools would also become very much more interesting. Why has this most important question of equipment for the Reserve Command been so consistently shelved by the Minister?
Because of this lack of foresight, it is not possible at the present time to give adequate training to the R.A.F. Reserve. I think that the Minister must admit that because of the shortage of equipment it is not possible to give adequate training for the Reserve. I think that he must also admit that the position is far from satisfactory. The same dilatoriness on the part of his Department has been shown towards Transport Command, which has been allowed to run down to an uncomfortable—nay, an almost dangerously low-level. Why have we not ordered British tactical transport, and why, when contemplating such purchases, do we appear always to give the Americans the preference?
I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) when he says, do not let us become too dependent upon our American friends. Our own construction companies must be encouraged, for when peace is assured we shall require the export values of British transport aircraft. I was one of those delighted and privileged to go to the


"Daily Express" flying display, and I also attended the display at Farnborough last year. I was confirmed in my own mind that our constructors and designers were the finest in the world. Why not give them every encouragement? Why have always this apparent preference for American aircraft?

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. A. Hendersonindicated dissent.

Wing Commander Bullus: The Minister shakes his head; apparently he does not agree.

Mr. Henderson: I said in my remarks that we have already given orders for hundreds of millions of pounds to aircraft manufacturers.

Wing Commander Bullus: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that in recent years British manufacturers have been discouraged. They are probably getting a little more encouragement now, but we still appear to show a preference for ordering American aircraft.
At this point, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is to become of the Bristol-Brabazon I? Is it likely that this aircraft and the Brabazon II will be taken over for trooping? We could have well done with such aircraft when our paratroopers were moved to Cyprus. In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about their being sufficient aircraft available at that time, we could have well done with these two large aircraft for trooping. If such aircraft is used, then the question of availability of airfields and landing grounds arises.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1951.
2. Appropriation Act, 1951.
3. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1951.
4. Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951.
5. Festival of Britain (Additional Loans) Act, 1951.

6. Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951.
7. Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1951.
8. Consolidated Fund (Civil List Provisions) Act, 1951.
9. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1951.
10. Telephone Act, 1951.
11. Midwives Act, 1951.
12. Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1951.
13. Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1951.
14. Guardianship and Maintenance of Infants Act, 1951.
15. National Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1951.
16. Fireworks Act, 1951.
17. Price Control and other Orders (Indemnity) Act, 1951.
18. Mineral Workings Act, 1951.
19. Forestry Act, 1951.
20. Tithe Act, 1951.
21. Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act, 1951.
22. Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.
23. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951.
24. Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
25. Sir William Turner's Hospital at Kirkleatham Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1951.
26. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
27. Walsall Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
28. Pier and Harbour Order (Lymington) Confirmation Act, 1951.
29. Saint Benet Gracechurch Act, 1951.
30. Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Act, 1951.
31. London County Council (Crystal Palace) Act, 1951.
32. Brighton Extension Act, 1951.
33. Abingdon Corporation Act. 1951.
34. Nottingham City and County Boundaries Act, 1951.
35. Bristol Corporation Act, 1951.
36. Dartmouth Harbour Act, 1951.
37. Bournemouth and District Water Act, 1951.
38. Lancashire County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.
39. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1951.
40. Faversham Navigation Act, 1951.
41. Sutton and Cheam Corporation Act, 1951.


42. British Transport Commission Act, 1951.
43. Swindon Corporation Act, 1951.
44. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.
45. Trent River Board Act, 1951.
46. West Riding County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.
47. Worcester Corporation Act, 1951.
48. Nottinghamshire County Council Act, 1951.
49. Liverpool Extension Act, 1951.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE (EQUIPMENT)

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

5.55 p.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I was inquiring as to the future of Brabazon aircraft and whether they were to be taken over by the R.A.F. That led me to pertinent questions as to the condition of some of our airfields in all parts of the world. I confess that I have been balloting unsuccessfully during recent weeks to try to get an Adjournment debate to call attention to the state of our airfields in all parts of the world, particularly in the Far East.
At the end of the war we had many excellent airfields. What is the position today? In the unhappy event of war in the Far East, how many airfields could we count upon? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will have something to say on that point when he replies to the debate. I hope he will tell us their state of repair. Have we learned anything from the trouble at Changi, in connection with which nearly £500,000 was lost. What have we learned from the investigations which have taken place into the matter?
That leads me finally to a point in connection with intelligence and research. Would the Minister tell us whether we have a British intelligence unit in Korea or whether we have to depend, as we do for so much, upon American information? If there is such a unit in Korea, has it been given full authority to carry out an independent examination of all captured enemy aircraft, for information which would be of real value to us? In connection with photographic intelligence are the squadrons now equipped with aircraft capable of penetrating deeply into

enemy territory? Have they the necessary long range, and are they equipped with cameras capable of registering the necessary detail at great height?
On all these points we desire to know more. Hon. and gallant Members on this side of the House have asked a series of pertinent questions. It depends upon the result of the answers that we get to them whether we can decide that the Royal Air Force today is even adequate.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) will be disappointed if I do not take part in this debate. On the last occasion that be spoke I ventured to interrupt, and he retorted:
the voice of Moscow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1772.]
I felt complimented at the thought that I occupied such an important position in the universe, but I can imagine no greater embarrassment being caused in Moscow than if they thought that I was putting the Moscow point of view. So far from putting the Moscow point of view am I, that I cannot even get a visa to go to Moscow, and I hardly think my chances are improved as I go along.
I understand that this debate so far has mostly been an argument among very experienced hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have had enormous experience in the Air Force and who are all advocating different kinds of aircraft. It has been a technicians' debate, a specialists' debate. They are all advocating their different types of aircraft and, like the cobbler, they all think that there is nothing like leather.
I understand from the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that there is a possibility of so much trouble in the world that we are required to have an increase in the number of transport aircraft, which are at present insufficient, and that the Government should build more transport aircraft in order to convey troops to all parts of the world. I hope that I have not misunderstood the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If not, I can understand how it arises. If action is taken in the different parts of the world in which action has been demanded by the Opposition, we certainly will need a very large number of transport aircraft.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that even the recent operation of moving troops to Cyprus ought to have been carried out by air instead of the time of our men being wasted by sitting in aircraft carriers and steamers for weeks on end.

Mr. Hughes: That puts the argument more concisely. I do not want to go into what we are doing in Cyprus, except to say that I understand that Cyprus is to be one of the bombing bases for the defensive action against the U.S.S.R. Cyprus is another instance. I have a list of places in regard to which the Opposition has demanded military action in recent months. In addition to sending transport aircraft to Cyprus, we have presumably to have sufficient to enable us to send them to Persia, Malaya, Hong Kong, Korea, Egypt and also the Antarctic.

Earl Winterton: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that the suggestion to send aircraft to Malaya and Korea is exclusive to the Opposition. No doubt he has noticed that his own Government are fighting a war in Korea.

Mr. Hughes: I am indebted to the noble Lord for the assistance which he always renders in these debates. I must correct him and say that it is the United Nations and not our Government which is supposed to be fighting in Korea.
I have mentioned six theatres of war to which we are called upon to send our troops in transport aircraft. If we are to be urged to have in readiness sufficient transport aircraft for all the military expeditions which are being advocated by the Opposition, we shall need a very large number, and we are entitled to know how the Opposition can justify their demand for expenditure upon aircraft which are getting more and more expensive, in view of the fact that during the last three months the Opposition's argument in debate has invariably been that the Government should decrease their expenditure. If all the demands for aircraft were accepted, we should have an astronomical increase in the expenditure upon the Royal Air Force.

Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the hon. Member does not wish to misrepre

sent the point of view of the Opposition. We have made no case at all for wars in these different places. Two of these places, Hong Kong and Malaya, happen to be British Colonies. Surely it is out of order to represent that the Opposition are demanding that troops should be sent to six different places to fight wars. All we are suggesting is that aircraft be used for ambulance work and other things in order to save the time of our troops, who would otherwise have to travel by steamer, and thus get them home as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hughes: I did not misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There are at least six places where the Opposition are in favour of military operations. They are places to which troops have to be moved, and presumably the demand will be that they shall be moved by transport aircraft. I do not know how many transport aircraft the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers necessary, but if we are to have enough to cover these enormous geographical areas we shall need 100 or even 1,000, which will involve a very large sum. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we were recently discussing the Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure in which we were told about the very large increase in the cost of military aircraft.

Sir Arthur Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that because, when considering our air preparations, we assume that there must be British soldiers in a Colony like Hong Kong, we are therefore advocating military operations in Hong Kong?

Mr. Hughes: I will put it this way. En Hong Kong there are British troops—

Earl Winterton: Earl Wintertonrose—

Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer two points at once. I shall be very glad to answer all the questions put to me and I will give way in turn to every hon. Member opposite who wishes to ask a question. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir A. Salter), the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is that transport planes are needed to convey troops in a more economical way to places where we have military forces. I want to look at the cost of this. I am not sure that here I shall not have some


support from the right hon. Member for Ormskirk, who has delivered so many statements about public economy during the last few months. The cost of one of these transport aircraft in 1945 was £45,250 and the Select Committee recently reported that the price has now risen to £91,000.

Air Commodore Harvey: Which one?

Mr. Hughes: It was a transport aircraft as stated in the Report of the Select Committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to drag me into technicalities, the debate will be lengthened. I will not be diverted from my argument. We must face the fact that hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite are advocating at least 100 or even 1,000 transport aircraft at an approximate cost of £100,000 each. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is that in one short debate about £10 million shall be added to the national expenditure. That is enough to set the right hon. Member for Ormskirk going about the terrible nightmare of inflation.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Member will now give way. He said that he would welcome a question. I wish to put to him a question which he will perhaps regard as a serious one. He is a pacifist. He is entitled to his views. He attacks his own Government. When any hon. Member on this side of the House states that it would be better for the troops, including wounded men from Malaya and Korea and others who have been kept in camps in great discomfort. to be flown to a place where there are already troops, he is not entitled to treat that as a laughing matter. It is an humanitarian matter. It is a matter of caring for the welfare of the troops. His own side, to do them justice, and the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the debate, are as keen on this matter as any of us are. The hon. Member stands alone in treating the matter as one for laughter and derision.

Mr. Hughes: I started arguing seriously but I was subjected to persistent interruption from the Opposition and I reply in my own way. I deny the right of the noble Lord to say that I am not interested in humanitarian matters. There would not have been troops in Korea if I had had my way and so we should not have needed to send ambulances to bring them

home. That applies to all these various theatres of operations. The noble Lord calls me a pacifist. Of course I am a pacifist. Pacifists do not believe in war at all, and if there were no wars at all we should not have these extensive military operations in all parts of the world.
However, the Opposition must face up to the economic and financial consequences of their demand. From that point of view, we are asked to spend another £10 million on one item alone. We are entitled to demand that we should not assent to this as easily as apparently does the noble Lord, who drifts in here casually—

Earl Winterton: I care for the troops, which is more than the hon. Member does.

Mr. Hughes: The noble Lord can put himself on that high pinnacle if he likes. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a persistent attempt to barrack me, but it will not work. A pacifist may be a peaceful individual in international affairs but, when it comes to a debate in this House, then I shall hold my own. if the noble Lord does not like it, he can go out and amuse himself elsewhere. He is taking up the time of other hon. Members. I shall conclude my argument. I do not care whether the noble Lord behaves as a juvenile delinquent or not. I have only just begun.
Now let me come to the argument used in this debate, that the more we spend on the Air Force, the greater the security of this country. I challenge that view, whether it is put from Macclesfield or Moscow or anywhere else. I challenge the idea that the more money spent on aircraft, the greater the security of any country. Recently we have had figures from both sides of the House.
One argument used for the expenditure of public money on the Air Force is tint Moscow has so many modern planes that we have to build up our Air Force to meet that. It has been said over and over again in this House that Russia has 19,000 modern planes. If that is so, it means that under Communism they have managed to build up an enormous aircraft industry because there must be an immense technical organisation behind that number of planes. I am alarmed at the way these figures are growing. We have been given a figure of 19,000—

Air Commodore Harvey: By whom?

Mr. Hughes: By the Minister of Defence. Mr. Acheson has estimated 20,000 and if these aircraft figures increase in the same way as the number of divisions has multiplied during the last month, what will they be? Is Russia any safer because she has 19,000 aircraft? I deny it. Moscow has argued that there must be strength to meet strength, and that the only way to protect Russia is to have all these planes. That is the identical argument used here. If Moscow has 20,000 modern planes—jet fighters and bombers —presumably we have to build up a great force in order to destroy their bases.
Now let us come to the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the defence debate, he pointed out that far from this country having any greater safety than it had 10 or 20 years ago, we are now in a state of great peril because of the American bombing base in East Anglia. In many respects in this controversy the Leader of the Opposition is a realist, not a mediaeval illusionist like the noble Lord. In the defence debate the right hon. Gentleman said that we are in a position of immense danger as a result of having those bombing bases in this country. He has repeated that three times, and in his last speech he talked about dispersing our strength to bases in the Mediterranean.
Supposing Russia has 19,000 or 20,000 planes, the Leader of the Opposition argued that if the Russians had 50 atom bombs and dropped them here, the position would be very serious for this country.

Air Commodore Harvey: And for the hon. Gentleman too.

Mr. Hughes: Even if Russia had only a small number of atom bombs and 20,000 aeroplanes, there would be a serious possibility that a dozen or so of those planes would come through. If so, what is the purpose of gigantic expenditure on aircraft which cannot possibly keep out the rocket or the atom bomb? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), discarded the theory that fighters and aircraft were really defensive. His argument was that we would have to take the offensive. That is precisely the Moscow argument. So, as a result of this theory, we have the world divided into two great camps, each

of which has enormous destructive power and against which the defensive is very weak.
So I challenge the idea that by spending huge sums in this way we are increasing the safety of the people. I believe, with the Leader of the Opposition, that we are in a state of great danger as a result of these enormous military preparations. If Russia has increased her military and aircraft and defensive-offensive potential so much during the last five years, is she not likely to increase it during the next five years? And if we are fortunate enough to escape war for another five years, as a result of both hemispheres having built up enormous destructive power which can destroy the civilisation of either East or West, in five years' time we shall be faced with the fact that we have this enormous potentially destructive power in the world.
So I challenge the idea that by piling up these armaments we are getting this nation into a state of security. We may make America more secure, but we shall not make this country more secure with its closely congested industrial population. When I give these warnings periodically, although I meet with criticism and opposition from that side of the House whenever I rise, yet I am taking the realistic view. And if the people of this country knew what they were doing, they would bring their enormous public opinion to bear, not upon increasing armaments but upon facing the cold fact that this country has nothing to gain by proceeding with the armament race; that our security depends upon negotiation and upon a diplomatic initiative which will face the fact of the modern world that, in the atom age, war has become an anachronism and does not bring security or safety to anybody.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks referred to the question of an intermediate jet trainer. In the short time I shall detain the House, I shall endeavour to expand some of the more serious and important arguments which exist for the introduction of this most necessary item of equipment. In spite of the strictures of the Secretary of State upon this subject, I honestly think that some of the accidents now occurring among jet pilots in Fighter


Command and Training Command are the result of pilots having unsuitable aircraft on which to learn to fly.
What is the case for an intermediate jet trainer? For the few months immediately following the war, I was privileged to command a station in Fighter Command on which were based three of the first jet squadrons in the Royal Air Force. Thus I was able to obtain in a small and humble way some first-hand experience, not only of the flying characteristics of these aircraft, but also of the difficulties which are presented in converting pilots from the conventional piston engine to this later, more simple, and more ingenious method of jet propulsion.
I do not hesitate to say that for an experienced pilot, with a high total of flying hours, it is an easy matter to convert him from piston-engined to jetengined aircraft, for in many ways these aircraft are much simpler to fly. But with the inexperienced pilot this is quite another matter, for in his vulnerable and uninitiated state he is required to contend with three prime factors.
First, he is faced with speeds of 400 and 500 miles an hour and more. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that a pilot can fly a Vampire or a Meteor at half speed. He can, but that is not my experience of Pilot Officer Prune. At these speeds, all sorts of navigational difficulties are presented, particularly in bad weather. In the second place, the pilot finds himself flying an aircraft which at low altitudes may run out of fuel in, perhaps, 50 minutes, whereas he may have been accustomed to flying an aeroplane with an endurance of one and a half or two hours. Third, and most disconcerting of all, he is conscious of controlling an aircraft which, on account of its high wing-loading—and this is the important factor—allows him little latitude for handling errors which are expected at that stage of a pilot's training.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that the Vampire is to be modified to take side-by-side dual control and will be introduced into the Service as a trainer. I am very glad to hear that. It is a step in the right direction, and is a further tribute to the genius, initiative and enterprise of the great British De Havilland Aircraft Company.
But I do not think that merely by taking out of the squadrons front-line aircraft such as the Vampire or the Meteor —aircraft which, although inferior in performance to their Russian counterparts, are still our first line of defence in a supreme emergency—and fitting them with two seats instead of one, we shall get an intermediate jet trainer, of an adequate type.
In the course of the next few years, we shall witness the advent of faster, higher-powered and more complicated aircraft into the Royal Air Force squadrons. The F.3, the F.4 and B.9 will far surpass in performance—and, incidentally, in expense—any comparable aircraft with which the squadrons are now equipped. I do not believe that we shall be able to afford, either in terms of money or in man-hours in the aircraft industry, avoidable accidents to such valuable equipment, particularly from pilot errors which in themselves may be the result of inadequate experience upon a suitable type of intermediate jet trainer.
As I see it, we are now preparing to equip the Royal Air Force squadrons with these exceptional aeroplanes without first providing adequate training aircraft on which pilots may gain knowledge, proficiency and confidence. This is a very curious way of setting about it. The Dutch, on the other hand, seem to me to be acting wisely and with foresight, for in the production of their advanced trainer—the Fokker S.14—with its lower wing-loading and longer endurance, they are showing an imaginative trend. It is not, in my belief, the complete answer, but it goes some of the distance.
I am thinking tonight in terms of an easy intermediate trainer, of lower wing-loading and of longer endurance, to which a pilot might be converted after only 20 or 30 hours of basic training on a light aeroplane. After 180 or 200 hours or so on such an aircraft, a pilot would be better equipped to tackle the more difficult and more powerful Vampires and Meteors, with all their many perplexities.
In these days, when military aircraft approach and pass the speed of sound, the method by which a pilot may be ejected from his aircraft in emergency, assumes an importance without previous parallel. As a result of the courageous planning and pioneering in this field, the ejection


seat manufactured by the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, which, so far as I am aware, is the only make to be supplied to the Royal Air Force, affords a very much wider measure of safety to the pilot.
But the recent tragic and irreparable loss of Squadron Leader Wade in the Hawker P.1081 experimental aircraft, which, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides will regret, has again riveted our attention on this type of equipment. The evidence would seem to suggest—I put it no higher than that—that when the emergency arose before his crash, Squadron Leader Wade operated his ejection seat in a final attempt to save his life. What was not made public at the time was that the seat employed in this experimental aircraft, which, naturally, had been undergoing experimental tests of a most hazardous character, was not of Martin-Baker manufacture but of a type never before subjected to live testing.
The 30 or more live-test ejections which have been undertaken by the Martin-Baker Company have directly resulted in the incorporation into this seat of two essential modifications which are now considered imperative for a pilot's safety. My information is that these vital modifications were not, and are not, embodied in the type of seat which was fitted to Squadron Leader Wade's aircraft.
When, on 30th April, my hon. Friends and I questioned the Minister of Supply upon this matter, he replied that live testing of ejection seats was not a requirement of his Department. The fact that six days after raising this matter in the House—namely, on 6th May—a seat similar to that used by Squadron Leader Wade was removed from an experimental Westland Wyvern aircraft at Farnborough and a Martin-Baker seat substituted in its place, is to my way of thinking a sufficient testimony to the value attributed in certain quarters to live testing.
I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-Secretary, in the interests of pilots' lives and safety, to impress upon the Minister of Supply that live testing of ejection seats is a definite Service requirement. Further, I ask the Minister to give tonight an undertaking that no ejection seat will ever be accepted by the Royal Air Force which has not first been subjected to a series of prolonged and searching tests such as those

which have been undertaken with such infinite resolution by Mr. Lynch, the parachutist of the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: One of the main objects of a winding up speech is to provide an opportunity to reply to some of the arguments which have been put forward during the debate by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but that task is made somewhat difficult for me this evening because, apart from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we have had only two back bench speeches from hon. Members opposite. One of the speeches we have heard so often before that it has been replied to, to my certain knowledge, after every Service and defence debate since I have been in the House of Commons.
There is one point about the speech of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), which I think I must make quite clear. When we on the Opposition side of the House talk about offensive aircraft, we do not mean aircraft with which we are going to take the first, initial offensive. That is an idea the hon. Member seems to have got into his head. The word "offensive" is almost synonomous with defence because, with speeds as high as they are, the interception of enemy aircraft is becoming so difficult that the best way to stop them coming is to go and bomb them before they ever get off the ground. That is what we mean by offence; it is purely a defensive measure.
The speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) was very much on the same point, but he was emphasising the importance of having a strong striking force and the importance of offence for defence. His point was that it was important that we should concentrate on that and not disperse our efforts by building too many types of aircraft. There is quite a lot in that, but the difficulty is that if we believe we ought to have a balanced force of our own—I firmly believe we should—we cannot rely on any foreign power, however friendly, to provide us exclusively with any one type of aircraft.
I believe that we should have our own British made, balanced Air Force, with British aircraft performing every duty in


it, whether it is a large or a small force —whatever the shape of it may be. Whether the offensive side of it is bigger than the defensive side or the transport side is a matter for the air staff but I do not think that we should hand over any single command to the Americans, or anyone else. This policy is very much that of the Secretary of State for Air, because in March, 1950, he said:
I am clear that it must be our aim to build up a compact, balanced and mobile force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1769.]
I am sure we all agree about that. What we are arguing about today is not his policy to build up a compact, mobile and balanced force; we are arguing that he is not doing enough about it, and that he has been putting it off much too long, long before he made that statement.
We have now got into a position where we have to call on the Americans to help us out—I agree temporarily. We are in the position where the Americans have to help us out in almost every branch of the Royal Air Force. We do not think that is at all healthy or desirable. There seems to be no sense of urgency about getting on with this plan of building up a balanced force. If there were a sense of urgency about it, I feel quite sure that we should not only be seeing more aicraft coming out of the factories, but we should be hearing that orders had been placed, in which case I think that the benches on both sides of the House—particularly the benches opposite—would have been very much fuller than they have been all the afternoon.
Let us look at one or two of the points which have been mentioned. Take Fighter Command first. It was our proud boast not so very long ago that we have the best fighters in the world. It was certainly our proud boast that we were furthest ahead of any nation with the development of jet engines. But only today the Secretary of State for Air has said at the Despatch Box that the fastest jet fighter in the world today is the American Sabre and the second fastest the MIG.15. He has admitted that. Incidentally, it was strange to hear him say that so soon after the Air Estimates debate of March this year, when the Under-Secretary of State for Air said this:
 Regarding the MIG.15, I have no doubt whatever that our fighters—the type we are

now using—will give a very adequate account of themselves against the MIG.15 or any other aircraft. I am not going to indulge in a lot of speculation about the performance of the MIG.15. Some of the very interesting figures given by the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and by others cannot be described as anything more than an estimate and a speculation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 379.]
But it is the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick who has been proved to be right—it has not been a speculation at all. It is very worrying when back bench Members of the Opposition have to tell the Under-Secretary things he ought to know and the Secretary of State for Air admits them at the Despatch Box so soon afterwards.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I correct that statement? I admitted it about three hours before the statement to which the hon. Member is referring, in reply to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).

Mr. Ward: I am afraid that is something I shall have to leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman to sort out with his Under-Secretary, but there seems to have been a complete contradiction between the two.

Mr. Henderson: There is no contradiction.

Mr. Ward: The fact remains that we have now taken at least third place; but, for all we know, the Americans may have the third place and the Russians may have the fourth. That is very bad considering the start we had, and I blame His Majesty's Government very largely for this. Not only have they delayed giving orders to the British aircraft industry so that they can get on with development of these new prototypes, but they have handed to the Russians on a silver platter much of the know-how which we developed through years of extremely hard work by selling them these Rolls-Royce Nene engines.
What is the position today? The position is that while we have no suitable fighters—by that I mean no very fast modern fighters—in our squadrons, we are begging the United States to come to our help with some Sabres, and nothing seems to be happening. What does the Secretary of State do? He throws up his hands in despair and says, "We do not control the United States Government.


We can only wait until we can get agreement on it." But if these fighters had been ordered in plenty of time and were coming out—the Swifts and Deltas mentioned this afternoon—it would be quite unnecessary for us to be begging the United States to help us out.
In Bomber Command once again we find ourselves relying on the Americans for Washingtons. I am not saying that the policy of the Government not to build more piston-engined bombers is necessarily wrong. Indeed, I believe that the policy of trying to produce a new jet bomber instead of a new stop-gap pistonengined bomber is right. But if we accept that policy—as we do—surely the next step to take is to say, "These things cannot be built overnight; therefore, we must apply a sense of urgency to them as we have never applied a sense of urgency before."
We have to get a move on quickly, because there is bound to be a gap. But we have not applied urgency or, if we have, how is it that we have ordered only 20 or so of the new Vickers 660? The Handley Page has not yet flown, and neither has the Avro. Why are we so far behind the Russians in this matter? Once again we have had to fill the gap by begging the Americans to help us out with Washingtons, which are not very satisfactory, because many of them are often kept on the ground through want of spares.
I cannot emphasise too much the importance of the striking force. As I have already said, our best form of defence is to strike at the enemy's strength. I hope that the Government are really treating this question of Bomber Command with the urgency that it deserves. We really must build up a bomber striking force.
I turn to Coastal Command, on which we rely very largely to keep our vital sea routes open in war. We have heard of these 300 fast modern submarines possessed by the Russians. What are we doing about that? We are waiting hopefully for the United States to give us Neptunes. That is the third Command of the Air Force which is now relying, it may be only temporarily, on the United States.
I am not quite sure of the position of the Shackleton, but so far as I know there there are not any in Coastal Command.

Mr. A. Henderson: Oh, yes.

Mr. Ward: Not very many. To rely on the United States for Neptunes cannot possibly be the right policy. We should have our own aircraft.
We have had an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick about Training Command. Let us not forget that Reserve training schools are today still using an aircraft which was designed over a quarter of a century ago. If we are really serious about this matter, if we really mean that we want to maintain peace through strength, how on earth are we to do it if we expect our pilots to train themselves on aircraft that are 25 years old?
Is this force which I have rapidly outlined really a compact, balanced and mobile force? That is very difficult to believe. What does the Secretary of State say when we complain about Transport Command, when we complain that no transports have been ordered, that we are short of transports to carry the Army to the Middle East? He says, "I cannot just wave a wand and do something about it." He says, "We are in touch with the Ministry of Supply. The matter is under active consideration," and that sort of thing. Once more the answer is that he is hoping that the United States will come forward and give us some Packets. If that is not true, I shall be very glad to hear what else we are doing about it.
He himself admitted that we have not ordered any new transports. I do not want to be unfair, but the fact is that I have before me the answer in HANSARD that we have not ordered any transports of our own. If we are to have any transports we must be relying on the Americans to give us Packets. The Secretary of State said that our civilian types of aircraft would be suitable for certain types of transport operations in war provided that they were, I think he said, modified with certain types of double doors etc.
If that is what we are very largely relying upon, I hope we shall be told what steps have been taken to get these modifications ready. These big aeroplanes cannot be modified overnight with new equipment, the doors altered and that sort of thing. Is any preparation being made about that if that is what we are hoping for to help us out?
I hope that we shall be told a great deal about the Blackburn Universal Freighter. The Secretary of State in an intervention, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said that the Blackburn Freighter was still doing trials and that they were not yet prepared to order any of them. But that is very weak indeed. The first prototype of the Blackburn Freighter has been flying for over a year; they must know something about it by now.
The second prototype has been cancelled altogether. Why is that? Why was it cancelled? I hope that we shall hear about that. It is a much better aeroplane than the Packet, and it suits Army requirements much better. Even the United States think it is a good aeroplane, because they have been making inquiries about it and are obviously interested in it. I should have thought that there was an ideal opportunity to let the Americans build some of them under licence, if they wished to do so, as in the case of the Canberra. If, as we hope and pray, we do not have to use these machines in a warlike way, we shall have an ideal potential export for peacetime use.
The Secretary of State said that we did not need "a vast armada of transport aircraft." Nobody on this side of the House suggested that we should have a vast armada. He went on to say that the ambulance service in Korea had been taken off for some reason or another, and he thought it was a great pity. But he is the Secretary of State for Air. Does he not know why it was taken off? What does "some reason or another" mean.

Mr. A. Henderson: It was because we were concentrating all the four-engined long-range transports for purposes connected with the situation in the Middle East. There was one four-engined transport in use each week which was taken off that particular service. I say again that I regret that it was, but I accept responsibility for it having been taken off.

Mr. Ward: I beg the pardon of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I misunderstood him. I thought he said, "for some reason or another." I accept what he says, but it merely strengthens

my argument that we have not got enough transport aircraft and that the sooner we get more the better it will be for everybody.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned the radar chain on the East Coast. That is obviously part of our air equipment, and a very important part indeed. My hon. and gallant Friend was anxious about it, as we all are. I should like the Under-Secretary of State, when referring to this subject, to go a step further and tell us a little more about the warning system on the Continent of Europe.
I was one of the fortunate ones who recently had an opportunity to go and observe the exercise "Ombrelle." I think that all of us who saw it agreed that the warning system was by no means perfect, that there was a great deal still to be done, particularly in the interception of low-flying aircraft.
The other thing we noticed was that there were no G.C.A. facilities whatever to get pilots down in thick weather. We had to orbit in a York over Holland for well over an hour because there was not a single aerodrome in that part of Europe where we could get down by G.C.A. If there are no such facilities, it means that our fighter defences in North Europe are absolutely useless in any sort of thick weather.
I am very glad indeed that we are able to part before the Recess on the note that we have given almost our last thoughts to the defence of this country in an emergency should it occur. I wish that there had been more hon. Members here to leave the impression with the public that we go away for our holidays, the last thought in our mind being the defence of the country. If this debate has achieved that, and if the public have been made conscious that a few of us, at any rate, have been trying to get up to date with what is going on in air defence before we go for our holidays, I think that it will have been worth while.

6.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): I should like to begin by agreeing entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) at the end of his speech. The air defence of this country is the most vital factor in our


defence. It is admirable not only that we should have had this debate just before the Recess, but that we should, much more regularly than is possible merely on Estimates debates, inquire into the state of our defences. We certainly welcome the whole debate.
There have been some most objective speeches in which I think there have been two main themes. The first has been the tendency, which has run through most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, to criticise the fact of American assistance—the fact that we need it and that we have it. The second, and I think the most general, theme has been a tendency to deplore that we have not got a larger Transport Command.
Before going into detailed points, I should like to say something about these two themes. First, on the question of American help, I should like to put this matter in its present background. The air threat to this country is very severe. There was a speech in this House recently by an hon. Member who questioned whether we were not exaggerating all our ideas of the threat which exists. I would only say that, having read his speech and taking all his figures of Russian production and so on, I think that everything he said still justifies all that I and others have said on this question. On all his figures, the estimates we give of the threat to this country are very possible.
I have said elsewhere that the present Russian air force would be capable, from its present bases, of delivering an attack on this country which would be heavier than the Germans were able to deliver at their peak. Of course, if those bases were moved nearer to this country, that threat would be heavier still.
One other factor which everybody thinking about air defence ought to bear in mind is that, when one is trying to plan an air defence, the first information which one wants is what the threat of the enemy is. Then one has to try to make an estimate of what sort of casualty rates can be inflicted on the enemy to prevent him from maintaining a sustained attack. Certain casualty rates seemed to achieve that object in the last war on both sides. If casualties above a certain level were reached, it became impossible for either side to maintain an attack for very long.
Of course, air defence today is based in many ways on the same principle. But there has been one significant change, and that is in the emergence of the atom bomb. Whereas when aircraft might be supposed only to be carrying orthodox bombs a certain casualty rate might give adequate defence, it is plain to anybody who thinks about the matter that, if aircraft may be carrying atomic bombs, it is necessary to have a much higher casualty rate before one can feel in any way secure.
One has to take the air threat which exists to this country as something which is most severe. I do not say that it would be impossible to meet that threat alone. I do not say that it would be impossible for this country to meet it without any help from the Americans; but I do say that it would be impossible to do that unless we went on to a full war footing and remained on that basis. The sooner the people of this country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, recognise that, the better. Not only would it mean doing that but, by doing that—by putting the country on a full war footing and keeping it there—we should be throwing away all the advantages of collective security and all the advantages of alliances. It would give the people a standard of living which might prove intolerable and which might undermine all that we are trying to do.
On this question of American help, hon. Members opposite are suffering from a form of schizophrenia which, in some ways, calls to mind that of the bad baron in "Ruddigore." Their intelligence forces them to admit that they need American help but every time they admit it, some ghost gets down from one of their ancestor's photographs and says, "In our day Britain had most of the best of everything, and it is a surprising thing that Britain cannot have most of the best of everything now." It is time they realised that the world has moved on a little, and that they really cannot face any of these problems without realising that this must be a joint undertaking.

Air Commodore Harvey: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what we have been trying to put over this afternoon. Our main criticism has been that we are accepting assistance —I say that we should accept that assistance—in penny packets. We are taking


various types of aircraft and engines instead of planning ahead and marking out where real assistance will be required in one sphere, rather than spreading it over the whole.

Mr. Crawley: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can even sustain that criticism. The fact is that in one very large sphere—that of strategic bombing—we have planned that, for the present, the Americans should undertake almost the whole of it.
For the rest, obviously there are two requirements—intelligent co-operation and two-way co-operation. I should like to point out that at present we have both ways of co-operation with the Americans. I think our co-operation is intelligent, because it is sufficiently flexible to enable us to fill in each others' gaps wherever they occur, and it is two-way, and I doubt if the balance is so wholly one-sided as some people seem to think. The fact that the Americans have accepted and adopted the Canberra and are going to produce very large numbers of them, and that they have adopted and are producing a very large number of Saphire engines and are trying various other types of equipment, engines and aircraft, shows that they are prepared to fill in gaps to a very large extent with anything we can produce. That shows that this is a thoroughly two-way and reciprocal proceeding.
Surely, what we want is not less but more of that. We want to pool both planning and productive resources and to get the best out of both. I wish, therefore, that when hon. Members opposite talk about this question, they would leave aside the general attitude of criticism of the mere fact that we welcome, at this or that time, the addition of some American aircraft to our Air Force, just in the same way as they welcome our aircraft. I hope that in the future they will see that that is the right sort of co-operation. I hope that they will appreciate that in any air force there will always be gaps of some kind which, if one is lucky, one may find that one's friends may be able to fill. Let us be only too thankful if they can.

Mr. C. I. On-Ewing: A second point made from these benches was that on Government policy, with which we agree,

it is most important to pay great attention to exports. We said that transport aircraft should make a real contribution to our export trade immediately and in the future. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point?

Mr. Crawley: I am just about to deal with that. I said that the second theme was Transport Command. Again, I think that there is a measure of irresponsibility in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is really no good pretending that we can have all the forms of aircraft in Transport Command, or in any other command, that we should like to have. Nor is it any good supposing that we can have the sort of expansion that we are now producing in the Royal Air Force, plus all the forms of transport aircraft that we should like to have, and still allow neither element to have any appreciable effect on our economy.
The fact is that there are limits within which we must operate, and we have to be very careful about our priorities. The thing that matters about Transport Command is to try to decide on the principles on which to plan. The most important consideration is not to have a Transport Command in which there are a lot of aircraft of different types which spend a lot of time on the ground doing nothing because they are only designed for special operations. There is no country in the world which can afford that type of Transport Command.
I think that the only principle on which we can plan Transport Command in peace-time is to see that we are meeting as many of the demands as we possibly can which allow us to have a command which can be kept busy, and that, above that, we have a reserve partly in civil aircraft. It would be quite beyond our scope to have any specially designed aircraft. Instead, we shall have as large a variety as possible for emergency jobs which would also be required for general purposes. We must recognise that fact.
I am not pretending that we have got everything we want now. The fact is that demands are going up, and we are, therefore, planning a larger Transport Command. We have not got all we want, but we feel that this is only a temporary phase, and we are planning and ordering larger and more various Transport Command aircraft for the future.
We have not yet, in fact, ordered the freighter because the tests are not com-


plete, and I want to say one particular thing about this business of ordering aircraft off the drawing-board. Because it succeeds once or twice, and because we hope it will succeed once or twice more, it would he a very great mistake to think that ordering aircraft off the drawing-board is an economical proposition. It is not. It might very well result in delaying what we want to get much longer than if we had gone through full trials.
That is one of the reasons why, with an aircraft as important as the heavy freighter, which is a very vital part of the transport force, we do not want to order it off the drawing-board, especially as this aircraft has been flying for some time. We want it to complete its tests, so as to give a complete order and not to have a second series of tests and troubles. I cannot emphasise this point too much. By ordering off the drawing-board, we are apt to run into development difficulties at a later stage which might well delay production far longer than would otherwise have been the case.
I should like to deal with a number of points which have been mentioned in the debate. First of all, there is the accusation of one hon. Member about the MIG.15. I repeat what I have said and sustain it. I said that our aircraft would give a very good account of themselves if they met any other aircraft. All the evidence we have had—and it is American evidence—shows that that is likely to be perfectly true. I gave some figures in the House the other day, but I will not quote them as I have not got them with me, and I might be wrong.
Such experience as we have had in Korea has shown that fighter aircraft comparable with those of the Russians have acquitted themselves well against the MIG.15, and have shown themselves, in the hands of better trained pilots, to be superior to them. That is only a limited experience, and it would be wrong to deduce too much from it, but it justifies me in the contention that our aircraft and pilots are capable of giving a good account of themselves against any of these aircraft.
We are just on the point of writing to three more charter companies to ask them to form three more auxiliary squadrons, and that will bring the number of reserve transport squadrons—and this supplements what I was saying about Transport Command and the necessity for a ready

reserve which could be kept busy in other ways on civil work—up to four reserve transport squadrons in the near future.
I was also asked about Moths for the A.T.C. At the moment we have a Service use for all the Moths we have, but, as the Chipmunks come into use, we may have some available and it will be possible for people to bid for them at reasonable prices. I was asked about the first photographic reconnaissance squadron to be equipped with modern aircraft, and I can say that I think it will be equipped by next spring with the Canberra, which we hope will be the ideal aircraft for the job, since it has a more than adequate range.
Finally, I want to deal with the question of the accident rate. It has been suggested in speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite today that the rate of accidents in the Royal Air Force is increasing alarmingly. The facts are otherwise. With the amount of flying increasing enormously, the fact is that the accident rate per number of hours flown is staying almost exactly the same. In regard to jet aircraft, it is steadily going down. The number of accidents per hours flown on jet aircraft is not only going down, but is well below what it was with Spitfires. This is a most interesting fact, and has a bearing on what was said by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) in his very-informed speech about training.
I have no time to go into the question of what is the correct advanced training for jet flying, but I think the facts that I have given concerning the development side show that there is nothing very radically wrong with our present methods.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps tells us, since he has said that he is creating extra transport squadrons, whether he is making plans for the fitting of double doors and cargo floors, which is a point to which we referred concerning existing squadrons and commercial aircraft?

Mr. Crawley: There are complete plans modifying aircraft in an emergency, but how far it is possible to do that without interfering with their civil use before the emergency is another matter.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.—[Mr.Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — ACCESS TO HOUSE (COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Report [26th July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered"—[Mr. Clement Davies]—put, and agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."

Mr. John Lewis: I propose to make a very short statement in view of the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and I would ask the indulgence of the House in this matter.
I would ask the House to accept that whatever occurred on the night of the 3rd July arose out of my natural anxiety to get to the House for what I thought was to be a critical Division. I think, on reflection, that it was unwise to have reported this matter to you, Sir, at the time. I believed at the time that it was the proper course to take. Whatever action was taken subsequently, I want to assure the House that it was on the best advice that was available to me.
At the time the incident occurred, I was extremely agitated because I thought I would not get to the House in time. When one is in a state of nervous anxiety, tempers are inclined to get frayed, and if this condition contributed in any way to the difficulties which arose I can only express my regret to the House.
I do not propose to say anything on the evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges, except to say that the evidence which I gave to the Committee was the truth.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I feel that we have had some useful guidance from the Committee on the difficult questions of Privilege. As I understand the situation, as a result of their Report, anyone anywhere who deliberately obstructs an hon. Member travelling to this House offends against the Privilege of Parliament. The privilege of unobstructed passage is not co-extensive with the Sessional Order.
On the one hand, the privilege is without geographical limitation; on the other hand, failure to comply with the Sessional Order will not necessarily, or indeed usually, involve breach of Privilege. The privilege is the negative one of not being obstructed. The Sessional Order imposes on the police the positive duty to facilitate progress, but failure to facilitate may be a breach of the instructions of the constable. Only in exceptional circumstances would it involve a breach of Privilege.
The second point, which seems to be of importance, is that it is an offence against Privilege to take steps to bring before a court of law, either as a civil wrong or by the Executive as a crime, an act which is within the Privilege of Parliament. Equally, it is not an offence against Privilege to bring before the courts, as in this case, an act which is not within the Privilege of Parliament, and if the act is not within Privilege, then it does not matter whether a Motion has been set down or whether any other means are taken to bring it before Parliament.
This case seems to be somewhat different from the Sandys case, but on this, for what it is worth, I agree with the Committee. Nevertheless—and I think this is important—both Parliament and the Executive should be careful to avoid conflict and not to impinge on the functions of the court, for when a claim of Privilege by whatever means has been raised, I think the police would be well advised —I put it no higher than that—to leave Parliament reasonable time in which to deal with the matter before they set the court in motion.
I rather gather from the Report that in this case the Committee were under the illusion that the summonses had to be issued within 14 days. That is not the law. So long as the warning is issued within 14 days there is no limit on when the summons is issued, and I believe the police would have been better advised to have left a little more time to see what action Parliament would take than merely to chance that the claim of Privilege would prove to be ill-founded. Equally, I think that Parliament should be careful not to impinge on the function of the courts, and it is here that I think the Committee of Privileges have gone wrong. I believe that their Report would have


been a far better Report had they accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).
The Committee of Privileges is not a police court. It is not its job to try an issue, and it was not its job to try the issue between the hon. Member and the police. It has not the machinery to do so. The hon. Member does not have the opportunity to present his case. He does not have an opportunity to cross-examine. He does not even have the opportunity to hear the evidence which other witnesses are giving. There is not the machinery to try an issue, and yet that is what I feel the Committee of Privileges did here. Their job, as I understand it, is to report to us whether a breach of Privileges has occurred. They investigated the facts, and it was clear when the facts were investigated that this was not a complaint of obstruction, but a complaint of failure to facilitate, and that there would be no breach of Privilege.
It seems that the Committee went quite outside their functions in trying the issue, rejecting the hon. Member's evidence in certain matters and accepting the police evidence when those matters were outside what it was necessary to find as to whether Privilege had or had not been established, and that in so doing they have impinged on the function of the law and have prejudiced the trial. I would refer particularly to two paragraphs in the Report. They are paragraphs 9 and 10, which the hon. Member for Broxtowe proposed should have been left out. They state:
 When the hon. Member reached the gate (through which only one car can pass at a time), there were in front of him some cars at a standstill—waiting to be allowed to proceed to the right towards Kensington, but unable to do so as their route was blocked by cars which were also at a standstill which had come from the direction of Marble Arch and desired to turn right through the Gate into Bayswater Road. It was this congestion which the policeman had seen from his point in Bayswater Road.
 The congestion had been caused by two cars coming together and getting their bumpers inter-locked. One of these cars came from the direction of Marble Arch and the other from the direction of Kensington. Both were going to go through the Gate into Bayswater Road. Both had passed the policeman on point duty in the Park…when they became interlocked. Before the policeman could intervene to stop them, cars had come up behind these two cars from the direction of Marble Arch and from that of Kensington. The traffic could

not move until these cars were separated and freed. In the meantime the cars which had entered through the Gate into the Park which wanted to proceed towards Kensington were held up between the Gate and the congested traffic above described.
In making that point, the Committee accepted the evidence of the police and rejected the evidence of the hon. Member, who said that there was no traffic there to obstruct. Frankly, I find it a little difficult to understand how this obstruction could have occurred. It is quite easy to see how a car coming from Marble Arch and turning right into the gate could become interlocked with a car coming from the Serpentine on a converging course. That is understandable.
But unless those cars blocked the gate, I find it very difficult to see how they could have blocked the left-hand turn towards Marble Arch. This is a narrow gate through which only one car can go, but it is the end of a funnel, and unless it is blocked it is very hard indeed to see how one can block the left-hand turn. That was my impression, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxstowe was that those paragraphs should be left out as it was not the function of the Committee to try the issue between the hon. Member and the police.
Today I had an interview with a gentleman who was driving his car along Bayswater Road when this incident happened. He told me he had no sympathy with the Labour Party—of that he was a bad judge—that he held the view that Members of Parliament ought not to have privileges over the rest of the community, and that the traffic should not he upset for their convenience. But he also told me that he approved of the police on these occasions giving accurate evidence and for that reason he had, when he read the Report of this Committee, telephoned to Mr. Lewis. He had seen the incident and he had got out of his car. Throughout the incident the whole of his sympathy was with the police, but when he read this evidence he felt that he had to come forward and say that he had got out of his car to look at it and that there was no traffic obstruction whatever in the Park at any time.
I feel that if the Committee had had the advantage of that evidence—not that they would have rejected the police evidence: as I understand it that is not their job—they would have seen the wisdom of the


hon. Member for Broxtowe in saying that they ought not to decide between two stories when they have not the machinery to test them one against the other.

Sir Peter Macdonald: The hon. and learned Member said somebody rang up the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis), to give him a certain statement. Did he give his name, and has he confirmed his statement by letter?

Mr. Paget: He rang up my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend brought him to see me in the House this afternoon. I took down a statement which he signed and which I have in my pocket. He was most anxious not to have his picture in the newspaper and that sort of thing, so I am not going to give his name, but I have the statement in my pocket. It may come up at a later time. I am saying no more than there was more in this question than the Committee had opportunity to see or means to decide and that they misconceived their functions when they converted themselves into a police court. That is all I am saying.
One final point with regard to this question of Privilege in general. There was an article in "The Times" today deploring frivolous complaints of Privilege. With that article I cordially agree. I believe that this House has been bothered by a number of quite frivolous complaints of Privilege and that hon. Members should be very careful indeed not to be too particular. [An HON. MEMBER: "Touchy."] I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hon. Members should not be too touchy about their rights. They should not be assertive and they should not bother this House unless the business of this House and its functioning have been seriously interfered with.
Having said that, one must also mention the effect that this must have on the restraint of individual Members, and the very worst way of getting restraint is by attempting to obstruct the exercise of rights by Members. I believe this has been the experience of Whips, of the Leader of the House and perhaps even of the Chair. In this case, I feel that both in the Committee of Privileges and in this House there was absolute unanimity on one thing, and that was that my hon. Friend's complaint raised an issue of Privilege.
That complaint did not turn out to have been well founded, but it did raise an issue of Privilege, and my hon. Friend was entitled to and did raise it. It was my hon. Friend's right to have that issue brought before the House, and I would respectfully say that I think a great deal of confusion has been caused by the use of the words prima facie.What I understand is the function of the Chair—and it arose when this was used by Irish Members for obstruction—is to rule whether the complaint, if well founded, raises the question of Privilege. If the matter raised by the complaint does not affect Privilege, then it does not have priority. If it does raise Privilege, it ought to have priority and be dealt with right away.
I would suggest two other things. The first is that hon. Members should come to you, Mr. Speaker, for advice and should be advised as to whether you think and will rule that the question which they propose to raise affects Privilege or does not affect Privilege. I feel that if hon. Members were told that you would rule that it did not affect Privilege many of these matters might not be raised at all, which would be all for the best.
I would suggest further that they should be advised, even when it does raise Privilege, whether you feel it is sufficiently important to bring before the House. I feel that by the restraint of hon. Members and with the assistance of your advice, which I know will always be available to them, the somewhat frivolous complaints of Privilege from which the House has been suffering will cease.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I shall detain the House for only a very few minutes, but I think a few things should be said having regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The first thing I would say—and I say it with the greater sense of duty because I think it very likely that no member of the Committee of Privileges will himself speak—is that this House is very much indebted to the Committee for the great speed with which they have produced this Report. It cannot have been easy to sift so much evidence and to go through so much investigation in such a short time, and on my behalf, and I think on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House,


I should like to convey my appreciation of the efficiency with which they have acted.
There is one word I should like to say, so that there may be no misunderstanding, about the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). I completely agree with the statement that the question whether he is guilty or not guilty of the offences for which he will shortly stand his trial is a matter for the courts and is in no way determined by any findings of the Committee of Privileges.
The two points on which I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton are these. The first was that he still thought apparently that some criticism should be advanced against the police. He said they would be well advised in such a case if they delayed the issue of summonses in criminal proceedings. I want to say in the clearest possible terms—I have already expressed this view in my speech on 24th July and I say it with renewed emphasis after reading the Report of the Committee of Privileges—that no complaint of any kind whatsoever can be made against the police for issuing summonses in this case.
That brings me to the only other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton on which I am respectfully going to differ from him entirely. He complains that the Committee of Privileges found various facts, and he pointed out that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) would have preferred fewer findings of fact to appear in the Report. I am certain of the complete good faith of the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I can understand that there may have been a difference of opinion between the majority of the Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe on how many facts it was necessary to find.
The point on which the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton very much puzzled me was this—that never, I think, has a speech made it more necessary for the Committee of Privileges to find various facts than the speech he himself delivered on 24th July. I will not quote passage after passage but I would remind the House of the whole point of the submission that he, and I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), made in opposition to me when I was stating that matters of criminal law were wholly

excluded from the Privileges of this House—that is to say, that this House does not claim any Privilege for its Members to be exempt from the ordinary process of criminal justice for acts done outside this House.
His whole point in answer to me was that the facts in the present case were so bound up with the question of Privilege that they must be investigated by the Committee. The very facts claimed as constituting Privilege were the facts which the police were claiming constituted crimes. He did not hesitate on the last occasion to mention a whole number of facts relating to the summonses and other matters which were not known to the House from any other source. That having been done in debate in this House, it seems to me that the Committee of Privileges were bound, when we remitted the matter to them, to make findings of facts.
I can quite see that there may be a genuine difference between the majority of the Members of the Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe as to how many facts it was necessary to find. I can see the difficulty, but not having served on that Committee myself I would not venture—and I think it would be improper to venture—on any decision between them. But I really do not think that we should ourselves say that the Committee of Privileges have done anything wrong at all in finding a series of facts.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman point out a single fact which I opined on 24th July and which was in issue before the Committee? They were all accepted.

Mr. Strauss: It is all very well to say that they were not in issue and were accepted. What the hon. and learned Gentleman did was to make a statement of all sorts of facts, and he said that the facts which he was alleging constituted both the assertion of Privilege and the offences which were the subject of the summonses.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Pagetrose—

Mr. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. The House will judge whether my reply is a good one or not. It is essential that the Committee of Privileges should find a series of facts. The Committee of


Privileges seems to me to have discharged their function bona fideand well, and I do not think that they should be subject to the criticism that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman of finding too many facts.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas): Perhaps it would be desirable that this point which has been raised should be cleared up. I should like to refer to Question 85 on page 7 of the Report, when I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis):
 I would like to be completely clear about this. The complaint is that the Police did not hold up the traffic to let you through at the moment you got to the head of the queue? 
That is the whole gist of the complaint. The answer was:
 Not at that moment. If there was any intention of doing that, then I would not have regarded it as being an obstruction "—
and now come the vital words—
 if conditions were such that it was not possible to let me through.
In view of that answer, it was, in my view, inescapable that the Committee should decide whether the conditions were, in fact, such that it was not possible for the police to let the hon. Member through.

Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his intervention which bears out that the Committee acted with complete propriety in finding a whole series of facts. I do not think that anybody who did not attend the Committee would have any inclination to criticise it.
Reference was made to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. He challenged five paragraphs of the Report—paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 —notin toto,but certain passages in them which he would have preferred to be different. I should like hon. Members to glance at the Amendment which the hon. Member for Broxtowe moved to paragraph 15. They will find it at the foot of page xi. This was the final sentence of the Amendment:
 There is no evidence that in this case the two police officers concerned did not act otherwise than reasonably and in good faith.
He meant, of course, precisely the opposite. He has got one too many negatives

in that sentence, which made his Amendment complete nonsense.

Mr. Cocks: Mr. Cocks (Broxtowe)indicated assent.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Broxtowe, with his usual good humour and honesty, nods his assent. I dare say he did the drafting hurriedly. I only mention it because I think that, since we are being asked to prefer the Amendments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe to the considered views of the Committee, that might make us hesitate—

Mr. Cocks: I would point out that this Amendment was written very hurriedly, and I never saw a proof of it. The word "acted" should be substituted for the words "did not act."

Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I do not want to exaggerate the point. There is no cause for criticism of the Committee of Privileges for this Report. On the contrary, we are indebted to them—and when I say that, I mean all of them. I say further that there is no complaint of any sort that can be made against the police, and I would finally say that it was necessary for the Committee of Privileges to find a whole series of facts, and I do not think that any criticism could be levelled against them because they discharged that duty.

7.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In the four or five discussions which, in the course of the last 100 years or so, have taken place on occasions of this kind when questions with regard to the obstruction of Members coming to the House have been raised, the Home Secretary of the day has intervened to give his assurances to the House as to the attitude which the Commissioner of Police adopts towards the Sessional Order.
I only wish to say this evening that the moment the Commissioner receives the Order each year he inserts in the Police Orders of the Day a paragraph drawing the attention of the chief superintendents particularly to the Order of the House and tells them that they are to instruct
 the constables at all times to prevent or remove any cause of obstruction and afford every facility for the free passage of Members to and from the House at all times.
As far as my observation goes, I think that the rank and file of the Police Force


endeavour to carry out that very difficult duty with courtesy, tact and promptitude. I wish to assure the House that I am certain that that is the attitude of all ranks of the force.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the answers to Questions 228 to 231, inclusive, at the foot of page 13, where Constable Cordingley was being examined, and he was asked by the right hon. and learned Chairman of the Committee:
…have you any instructions at all with regard to Members of Parliament in your Division?—Yes, Sir.
 Are they written instructions or verbal instructions?—We were told at the Training School.
I want to bring home to Members of the House the importance that this particular point has in the training of a policeman, and that every man as he goes through the Training School has this particular duty brought to his attention.
At previous meetings of the Committee I have been called to the Chair. On this occasion, as I am responsible to the House for some parts of the police duty in the Metropolis, it would have been wrong for me to take the Chair or to attend the Committee. I did not, therefore, attend, in order that there should be no feeling that the Committee had been improperly influenced by any bias which I might have.
May I say this? During the course of the preliminary discussions before this matter was sent to the Committee of Privileges, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that I gave orders to the police about issuing a summons. May I say that that is entirely wrong? No police authority may instruct a constable to issue a summons or to refrain from issuing a summons. That is a matter which the constable has to decide on his own responsibility. Of course, in the organised police force he makes his report, which is considered by the legal advisers to the force, and they decide whether or not a summons shall be issued.

Sir Herbert Williams: On the rare occasions on which I have had a summons it has always been signed by a magistrate and not by a police constable.

Mr. Ede: Undoubtedly the summons is signed by a magistrate, but the information upon which the summons is based is laid by a constable.

Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend saying that a summons is issued on the authority of the constable? Is it not a fact that the information is laid by the constable before some superior officer—some officer very much above the rank of constable?

Mr. Ede: That is exactly what I was saying when I was interrupted—that the constable reports and then the legal advisers to the police or a superior officer decide that information shall be laid and a summons applied for. Of course, it is within the discretion of a magistrate whether the summons is issued or not. I want to make it quite plain that the Home Secretary has not and never has had the power either to order the issue of a summons or to order that a summons shall not be issued.
May I say this in conclusion? I do not want to deal with the merits of this case at all, but I am quite certain that we must all recognise this: that the problem of London traffic is a very heavy one for the police, and that it is only by their efficient regulation of the traffic that in many parts of London the traffic can move at all; and that when a policeman, in the due exercise of his duty, bona fide has to hold up a line of traffic so that another line may proceed, he cannot, I think, be held to be guilty of obstruction for, if he was not there to regulate the traffic, the probability is that neither line of traffic would be able to move at all.
I am quite certain that we have to apply the Sessional Order of the House in accordance with the facts and circumstances of our time. I desire to assure the House that the police of the Metropolis will at all times do what they can to see that the Sessional Order is carried out, not merely in letter but in spirit.

7.46 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should not have taken part in the debate but for the state of confusion in which the Home Secretary was on the subject of who issues a summons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Home Secretary quite definitely said that it was the policeman who issues the summons, but


that is not in the faintest degree true. That is why I raised the point.
There is one satisfactory feature about this Report which at least should be put on record. These privileges do not arise out of the Sessional Orders. If hon. Members will read through them they will see that they apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Sessional Order has no significance at all; it is merely a reminder to the Commissioner of the Police in a particular area which affects us more than other areas. The Sessional Order has no importance; the Report makes it quite clear.
We have not solved this problem, that we have two sets of law operating. One law makes it an offence for a policeman to take certain actions. I have no complaint at all here; on any occasion on which I have wanted to get to the House I have been given every facility. I drove in solitary state down Whitehall recently when it had been cleared for a Royal procession. I have no complaint at all. I just said where I wanted to go and the barrier was raised, and I drove in great state down Whitehall. The taxi man was much impressed.
But let us take the serious point which the Committee did not face. We declare that privileges are not personal to us. They are the privileges of our constituents; that is the fundamental thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are the privileges of our constituents in the sense that we cannot discharge our duty to our constituents—that is the fundamental basis—without what are called the Privileges of Parliament. I notice that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) laughs, but he has only to dig back into history, to which he belongs—

Earl Winterton: I hope my hon. Friend will not mind my making the observation that it is sometimes rather difficult to avoid laughing at his remarks. I hope he will not mind my laughing. I know I ought to take him seriously.

Sir H. Williams: On this occasion, as far as I could make it out, the bulk of hon. Members laughed with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; laughed at you."] We are in this conflict.
We have over many years proclaimed that Members have a certain privilege of access to this House. Circumstances might arise, when an hon. Member is making use of the privilege which this House has conferred upon him, in which he is obstructed. The question is this: in which order do the two crimes occur? Because if the policeman obstructs me, he has committed the first crime; and if. later, I exercise my rights against him and he charges me with a crime, we have the problem of which crime occurred first. [Laughter.] This is a perfectly serious point; I wish hon. Members would sometimes apply their minds to the fundamental problem at issue, a problem which the Committee have not faced and have not answered.
The present position is that in future no hon. Member approaching this House will know what his rights are and no constable will know what are his rights in relation to an hon. Member. Although the Committee have taken infinite trouble, I do not think they have solved the problem which hon. Members and the policeman would have liked to have had solved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
 That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report.

Orders of the Day — LADY MELLOR (COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Report [18th July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered—[Mr. Ede]—put, and agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."—[Mr. Ede.]

7.49 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I apologise for troubling the House, and I will try to keep my speech as short as possible. I rise in order to put a point of view concerning what may be described as the minority report to the Committee's Report. I use the term not in its technical sense because, as the House is aware, there can be no minority report to the Report of the Committee of Privileges as there can be in the case of a Royal Commission.
At the outset, I want to emphasise certain facts. First of all, I should like to say that I am speaking only for myself and that I rise only for the purpose of supporting the principle and the contention which, as I have already said, is embodied in my Amendment to the Report which I will presently read. I shall not ask the House to divide against the Report, because my desire is to cause the minimum of controversy and friction. One can see that the Committee was not united in its view, and I should like to make it clear that it was purely accidental that the vote on my Amendment happened to be defeated on party lines, for I am sure that neither side was actuated by party motives.
Before I come to the gist of the proposal, I should like to make this further observation. Anything that I say is not intended to reflect in any way upon the Chairman of Committees. It will not be improper in the circumstances for me to say that his dignity, confidence and fairness in the Chair I personally greatly admire. I should like to say also that in a sense I am not concerned with the position of the Chairman of Committees or Lady Mellor, because I want to put forward a view which was only defeated in the Committee by a narrow majority, and which seeks to establish at least in general terms the rights and privileges of the Chair, and also of its criticis outside the House.
Assuming that the principle of my Amendment were accepted, I should regard it as a minor point whether Lady Mellor did or did not infringe that principle, especially as the Committee recommended that no action be taken against her. I admit that someone in that case might ask, "How can the principle be accepted if no Division is called?" I would reply that my purpose would be to secure a discussion for a rather complicated reason, for which I ask the leniency of the House if I do not explain it very clearly because it is very complicated.
It is not an improper disclosure of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, of which I happen to be the senior member in point of service, to say that the Committee bases its Report on submissions to the House of precedents, views of Erskine May, decisions by, or debates in, the House and what one might

almost call the obiter dictumof Mr. Speaker. These precedents, decisions and statements by Mr. Speaker stretch back literally for hundreds of years. For example, a matter was quoted in a Report of the Committee of Privileges at the time which was given to us by one of the former officials of the House, which stretched back to the 17th century. For all those reasons and because of the manner in which the Committee based its decision, I think it is useful to have a discussion on a point, even if it were a minority one, which seeks to modernise the relations between us and those outside bodies or individuals who might comment adversely on its judgment.
I am afraid at this point I must trouble the Committee to read the Amendment which I moved to the Report. It is on page 6 of the Report and it says:
 Your Committee are of opinion that adverse comments on Rulings given by or actions of Occupants of the Higher or Lower Chair, whether implicit or direct, do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege. If they did, whenever a Motion criticising the action of the Chair is discussed in the House, as has often happened in the past, the Press would be procluded from expressing sympathy with the supporters of the Motion because, by so doing, they would be criticising the Chair. Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship' between Parliament and the Nation. On the other hand, a criticism, whether by a Newspaper or an Individual, charging the Occupant of the Chair with a partiality or venality or unfitness for his Office should, in your Committee's opinion, be treated as a breach of privilege.
I then go on to say that we did not consider that Lady Mellor came within that category, and then I added:
 We think it right to add that the considerations urged in the first four paragraphs of this Report are confined to the position of outside Bodies and Individuals who are not members of this House and do not apply to Members of this House.
My contention, which I will put in the most succinct form—we have plenty of time tonight and I would invite discussion on them—is that the Amendment protects the Chair against charges which would deprive it of its due authority to perform its duties and high functions.
I should like to go on to the next point, and here I imagine I would receive assenting cheers from both sides of the House. The House has never accepted


the doctrine of infallibility for Mr. Speaker when in the Chair, or the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy-Chairman or any temporary Chairman. The power to criticise any of these functionaries or remove them by Resolution of the House is completely incompatible with such a doctrine. It is open, as the House knows, at any time to put down a Motion criticising any of the occupants of the Chair, and it is open to the House to remove a Chairman by a Motion of the House. The doctrine of infallibility—and I do not use that phrase in any way offensively to Members of a certain religion—has never been applied to occupants of the Chair of this House.
To come to this immediate case, I suggest that the matter at issue is, did Lady Mellor charge the Chairman with lack of faith, unworthy motives or partiality? I submit to the House that she could not have been guilty of a breach of Privilege unless this House asserts what I claim to be an entirely new principal—that no one outside may support a Motion on the Paper criticising the action of the Chair or a Motion about the discussion on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Finance Bill. If anyone takes a contrary view to that, it would be impossible for any person or any newspaper to comment at all by way of support of any such Motion on the Paper. I do not think that that would be tolerated by public opinion.
In the previous discussion we heard a great many things about Privilege, and, speaking as the senior Member of this House, I say that it is all very well to assert the Privileges of this House, but there are such things as the privileges of the public. We have to consider them, and it would be a great breach of the rights of the public to say that in no circumstances could they support any Motion which criticised the Chair.
To support my case, I say that the Committee by a small majority were wrong in holding that Lady Mellor had committed a breach of Privilege, and I should like to refer to certain of the findings and to the evidence. First of all, I should like to draw the attention of the House to two cases which it was suggested were precedents. They are on page 3 where it says:
The words which have been so held have however usually been of a stronger character

than the words now under consideration. The nearest precedents appear to be the word 'disgraceful' used of a ruling from the Chair in 1938 by 'The Daily Worker,' and the words 'Nothing short of a public scandal' applied to a ruling from the Chair in 1888 by Mr. Conybeare.
In the case of the "Daily Worker." it was described as
a gross breach of the privileges of the House.
I will come in a moment to the action which which the House took, which was exactly nil. The House took no action. They merely recorded their opinion.
My contention is that I cannot see any real and justifiable link between the charge against the Chair of giving a "disgraceful" ruling, or one "nothing short of a public scandal," and the comment made by Lady Mellor that a ruling of the Chair was "very deplorable." Lady Mellor qualified that statement by saying that it was a Ruling within the rights of the Chair.
I will be very frank and be entirely non-party, and will say that I admit that one sentence at the end of Lady Mellor's statement which formed the subject of the reference to our Committee might have been taken as meaning that the Government improperly influenced the Chair's decision. The sentence to which I refer is that in which she was reported as saying:
 It seemed a particularly bad thing when a government with such a small majority was in power refused to admit full and free discussion.
It might equally be taken as meaning that in the circumstances the Government themselves should have made it clear that they wished for the fullest and freest discussion by supporting the points of order asking that the Amendments be called.
Here I want to say something which I hope will not cause any perturbation. It is quite a useful thing to bring out facts which are normally concealed from the eyes of the public. It is a fact, as most hon. Members of the House know—whether we like to recognise it or not—that the Government and the Opposition can, through the usual channels, usually induce the Chairman to give more latitude to particular Motions than the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders sanctions. We know, again and again that Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Logan: Do I understand the noble Lord to mean that influence can be brought to bear upon the Chair?

Earl Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman would listen—

Mr. Logan: I did listen to the noble Lord.

Earl Winterton: I say that it is a fact, whether we like to recognise it or not—I will put the matter in a different form, a more simple form—that by general agreement in the House and if representations have been made through the usual channels, discussion is frequently allowed on resolutions, Amendments or Bills which is perhaps not strictly within the Rules of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Again and again we have heard Mr. Speaker say words to this effect: "I think it will be for the advantage of the House if such and such a thing is done." We know that it has happened again and again. I turn from that point to the next—

Mr. Logan: An imputation on the Chair.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will not the noble Lord admit the great distinction between allowing latitude in a debate and the Chairman allowing discussion on Amendments when it is out of order?

Earl Winterton: That is not the case—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter which, as I say is non-controversial—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] Well, non-party—I am perfectly prepared to follow it further. I would say this, that in my experience—I do not think anyone would deny it—the Chair does have regard to the feelings both of the Government and of the Opposition in respect of certain matters. It may be only coincidence, but in fact, after the Resolution to which reference was made, there were, both on the Committee stage and on the Report stage, very many more Amendments called than I remember on most Bills in the past. It is quite proper that the Chairman should have regard to the feelings of parties.

Mr. Logan: Mr. Loganrose—

Earl Winterton: Whether or not Lady Mellor—

Dr. Morgan: On a point of order. This is a very serious matter,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a definite charge that, when the Government and the Opposition are agreed, certain things are allowed by the Chair which would not be allowed to an ordinary Private Member. I really must confess that I ask for your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I listened to the noble Lord, and since I was appointed Deputy-Chairman nothing of that character has come to my notice. [Interruption.]

Earl Winterton: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who just said: "The noble Lord is telling the truth." The real point is—I am sure that both sides of the House will wish to approach this matter with the utmost frankness, and I hope to have some influence on the minds of those who may have had a different view previous to the discussion—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). wish to make a speech?

Dr. Morgan: I am qualifying the noble Lord's speech.

Earl Winterton: In all the years I have been in this House, I have never asked anyone to qualify my speech, and if I wanted help the last quarter I would look to would be the hon. Member for Warrington, and that would apply to most of his colleagues as well.
The point with which we are concerned in this discussion is whether or not Lady Mellor said anything which she intended to be a charge of non-impartiality against the Chair. I will ask the House to look at the answers which she gave on the subject in answer to a question which she was asked. On page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence, it will be seen that one of the witnesses said:
 At the conclusion of speech by Lady Mellor, several questions were asked, but I did not take shorthand notes of those, or answers. I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias.
It is right, in justice to Lady Mellor, to quote what she said in evidence on Monday, 16th July. She said:
 I wish to make it quite clear that in my opinion Major Milner is always impartial in his conduct of the Chair.


She said again:
 I did question Major Milner's judgment but, never his impartiality.
She repeated that she emphasised once again that Major Milner's judgment was the one particular thing that she criticised, and not his impartiality.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the noble Lord make it clear that these remarks were not reported?

Earl Winterton: These are the answers she gave to a question put to her on 16th July. She had already said, long before there was any Motion before this House, when asked a question at the meeting, that she did not intend to impugn Major Milner's judgment. I quote again:
 I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias.
That was said at the time of the meeting. It was quite understood that whether Lady Mellor committed an error of judgment in making her comment upon the Deputy Speaker or not, she did not intend to question his impartiality.
In the light of the statements Lady Mellor made both at the time and subsequently in reply to the questions of the Committee, I find it impossible to believe that. Lady Mellor did comment on the judgment of the Chair but she did not criticise the impartiality of the Chair, but I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that those outside this House have a perfect right to make comments adverse to the Chair provided that they do not infringe the principles which I have already enunciated. I am glad to see assent from some hon. Members opposite. If this House thinks that it can at this time of day assert rights which it really has never asserted in the past in respect of the Chair or anything else, it will get itself very much wrong with public opinion outside.

Mr. George Wigg: \: I find myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Lord has said, but he ought in fairness to the Committee of Privileges to point out that the claims he is making for Lady Mellor cannot be substantiated by any evidence. Those statements were not reported.

Earl Winterton: Yes, they were. All I have read out is to be found in the evidence.

Mr. Wigg: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I meant was that none of this is supported by reports in the newspaper. They are all things that Lady Mellor might well have thought up afterwards. I am not saying that she did so but that she could have done. We ought to draw a distinction between reports of what she said supported by the reports in the newspaper and what Lady Mellor may have thought up afterwards.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The hon. Member is in error. The first of my quotations was from a statement made by one of the witnesses, and I will read it once more. The witness was Mr. William Strange, and this is what he said:
At the conclusion of speech by Lady Mellor, several questions were asked but I did not take shorthand notes of those, or answers. I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias.
I remember "scrupulously" in some reference to "bias."

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was not inserted in the newspaper. That is the point.

Earl Winterton: I have never heard a more extraordinary argument than that. This is the statement of a witness. The witness said he was convinced that Lady Mellor had used these words, which showed that she did not intend to reflect upon the partiality of the Chair.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The noble Lord does not follow my point. This does not derogate from the credibility or the strength of the statement. What was put to the noble Lord was that the statement was not in the newspaper. He rather led the House to believe that it was.

Earl Winterton: Nothing of the sort. Lady Mellor or any other person whose statement is complained of cannot be held responsible for what appears or does not appear in a newspaper. What she is responsible for, and what every person against whom a complaint of Privilege has


been made is responsible for, is the statement made. I claim that on all the evidence—I am sure that I have all my colleagues with me—after the most careful examination of the witness we were convinced that Lady Mellor did give this answer to the question. I hope I may leave the matter there.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. On a number of occasions the noble Lord has admitted that it is not in order in this House to discuss proceedings in the Committee of Privileges except in so far as they appear in the Report. The noble Lord is going quite outside what I have always understood to be the rules of Order, for he is asserting that every Member of the Committee accepted the evidence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Earl Winterton: To save the time of the hon. Gentleman and the House, I will put it in a different form and then the hon. Member will not wish to raise a point of order. It would appear to be obvious from the questions asked of this witness by the Members of the Committee that particular pains were taken to find out if his recollection was right and that the Committee accepted it. There is no breach of order in saying that.

Mr. Fletcher: Will not the noble Lord agree that there is nothing in the Report of the Committee to suggest that they necessarily accepted that evidence?

Earl Winterton: There is nothing to the contrary. What I am advocating to the House is that my Amendment, which was supported—

Mr. Wigg: Will the noble Lord give way?

Earl Winterton: I think I might be permitted to continue. I have never known more interruptions in a single speech.

Mr. Wigg: This is a very important point. If the noble Lord will turn to paragraph 105 on page 6 of the Report he will find that Mr. Strange's evidence on this point was prompted by a telephone call from Lady Mellor to the editor of the newspaper asking the editor to see —I am not complaining of this—if Mr. Strange could remember a question that was asked of Lady Mellor at the end of

her meeting because there was no record of it. I find myself in some difficulty in accepting the noble Lord's point of view that Lady Mellor is supported by what Mr. Strange said.

Earl Winterton: I gather that the hon. Gentleman means that he doubts the credibility of Mr. Strange. He is entitled to do so if he wishes, and I accept it. As he made a very friendly reference to the rest of my speech, I hope he will now permit me to continue. I accepted the witness's evidence, and I believe that my colleagues did, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, I am not entitled to say that. If they had not accepted the credibility of the witness they would have put other and more searching questions.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Does not the noble Lord agree that a distinction may properly be drawn between a qualification extorted by perhaps an indignant questioner—we do not know the nature of the question—and the content of the main body of the speech? It seems to me, looking at the Report of the main body of the speech, that the juxtaposition of the last sentence and the penultimate sentence can only indicate a direct reflection upon the partiality of the Chair.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a perfectly fair question. However, never before in my 47 years in this House have I known what it was to stand in the witness box. Nevertheless, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's cross-examination question to the best of my ability by saying that I do not think he is right. For one thing it is unlikely that it would have been a hostile question, for it was delivered at a small garden meeting at which some 30 Conservatives were present. I believe the reply was given in all good faith by Lady Mellor, and I believe that Mr. Strange, the reporter, whose memory some hon. Members seem to doubt, was correct.
I want to conclude by asking some questions. I hope that some of the vociferous—I will not say that, because the House has been very good to me—some of the more persistent questioners opposite, when they address, the House will answer the points which I now propose to put.
What purpose is served by saying that a breach of Privilege has been committed


if no action is taken? It is true that we have a precedent for it. It is true that in the case of the "Daily Worker," which described the attitude of the Speaker as disgraceful—which I should have thought any fair-minded person would agree was a breach of Privilege—a more serious charge could have been brought than in respect of anything Lady Mellor has said, but no action was taken. What is the purpose of this? Is it intended as a warning or to enhance the dignity of the Chair? I should have thought that the failure in 1938 to take any action against the "Daily Worker" did not impress either the public or that paper.
Now I shall say something which will cause universal dissent on all sides I entirely agree with the attitude of many newspapers and individuals outside this House in regard to Privilege questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am astonished, delighted and heartened beyond belief to get those cheers and I am most grateful. I think the House is getting far too Privilege minded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and if any person wishes to guy our proceedings, all they have to do is to get up every time after Questions and say, "Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise a question of Privilege."
There are at the present time up there in the Press Gallery 30 or 40 persons who are taking down the proceedings of the House. That is contrary to the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker would presumably say that it is a prima faciecase of Privilege and it must go to the Committee. It could be done day after day.. In this matter the House could quite easily make itself supremely ridiculous and, far from enhancing the dignity of the Chair or of anyone in the House, it would have exactly the opposite effect.
I know the House generally dislikes a story, but I cannot resist telling this one because I once broke a convention. It was solemnly impressed on me by my Whips when I first got into the House that it was the right and privilege of hon. Members of this House to wear a hat. Without it, they would get into trouble. The only place where they need not wear hats was in the dining room. Every hon. Member had to walk into the House with his hat in hand and put it on immediately he sat down. Some of us decided

that it was out of date and fantastic and we decided to break it. People shouted when we came into the Chamber, "Hat, hat." We said it was ridiculous to say that this was either a right or a Privilege. I suggest that some of these cases of Privilege are equally as ridiculous as the idea of wearing a hat.
If I were to get on to the subject of procedure, Sir, you would properly call me up. However, I must just call attention to the comic opera arrangement by which one can only raise a point of order during a Division by putting on a hat. Anything more childish can hardly be imagined. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I must add this, too, that it is awfully funny, with a Left wing Government in power for the last six years, that the House should have had more cases of alleged breach of Privilege than at any time in its history. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not here, because he is the principal protagonist in the matter.
I beg the House not to be too sensitive in the case under discussion. I do not ask hon. Members to reject it, but I ask them not to be too sensitive now or on future occasions. Because there is a danger that they might create ridicule or resentment against the House as an institution by the effect on public opinion outside, to whom in the end, in our democracy, we must always be responsible.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for the first time since I have been in this House. I think we shall lay ourselves open to damaging repercussions of public opinion if we go on raising questions of Privilege like some of those we have had during the last few months. I have questioned the noble Lord on some of the points he has put before the House, not because I have doubted what he said—I did not have the advantage of hearing the evidence—and I am quite prepared to accept what the Committee of Privileges say in their Report. I merely wanted to draw a distinction between the point at which I agree with the noble Lord and the point at which I would require further evidence before going as far as he went.
I think the question of Lady Mellor should not come before the House of Commons because I do not think that what she says is as tremendously important as all that. I do not say that in an offensive way. If Lady Mellor wants to criticise Parliament, it is a good thing for Parliament, and I do not think that the Chairman of Ways and Means suffers very much if Lady Mellor says unkind things about him.
I have said some unkind things to the noble Lord, and he has said some to me. I do not regret anything I have said, and I am sure that he does not regret what he has said. It is quite likely that the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord may be the last speech of his we shall hear in this House. I hope he will not misunderstand me if I say that I hope it is. I understand he is retiring from this Parliament, and I hope we are going to have a General Election before the end of September so that we can give the Government a larger majority than we have at present.
If, however, the noble Lord is going to leave us, I should like to say that so far as I am concerned he will go with every expression of good will. I regard him as a completely honest and honourable man. Like myself—(Laughter.] There should be a full-stop after man. Like me, when he hits he does not mind whether he hits above or below the belt. I understand that in the last Parliament the noble Lord was sometimes confused with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). One of them was called "Arsenic" and the other "Old Lace." I know the right hon. Member for Easington better than I know the noble Lord, and I am not quite sure who is "Arsenic" and who is "Old Lace."
I am quite certain, however, that the noble Lord tonight, in his last speech in this House, has done great service to the House of Commons, particularly if we listened with care to the advice he gave us. If we have a new Parliament, as I hope we shall in the course of the next few weeks, the new Parliament will add to its dignity and to its lustre if every hon. Member reads what the noble Lord has said and takes it to his heart. With those words, I wish the noble Lord the best of luck in the future.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The House is indeed indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for his assistance in these matters on so many occasions, and particularly on this occasion. His speech divided itself into three parts: first, the question of what is the Privilege of the House and its extent, and what would constitute a breach of it; second, what were the effect of the words used by Lady Mellor, and whether they constituted a breach of Privilege as we understand it. His last point was, what is the purpose of having found that there was a breach and then to say that we advised that the House should take no action?
With regard to the first point—that is the one where the noble Lord has done a real service in bringing it to the attention of the House—there is, quite obviously, practically no difference between any of us. Too many questions of Privilege have been raised in this House. Members are getting much too sensitive, much too ready to claim Privilege when really the question of Privilege does not arise.
In the last Report of the Committee of Privileges which was before the House prior to this one, we pointed out that the Privilege of individual Members is really only the Privilege of the House itself, and that we only derive any rights we have in as much as we are part of the House, and nothing more. The same, then, applies to you, Sir, and to the other Officers of the House. What we are anxious about is that we should maintain the position of the House and its dignity, and that you should be protected in your position.
The noble Lord put before the Committee the Amendments to which he has already referred. May I again refer to them and say that with the statement he then made, I think we were all in agreement? This is what appears on page vi of the Report from the Committee of Privileges:
 Your Committee are of opinion that adverse comments on Rulings given by or actions of Occupants of the Higher or Lower Chair, whether implicit or direct, do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.' 


They do not constitute such a breach. Comments can be made upon you, Sir, and your colleagues. They might be a breach of Privilege, but are not necessarily a breach of Privilege. With that statement of the noble Lord, I think we are all in agreement.
Page vi of the Report continues:
 If they did, whenever a motion criticising the action of the Chair is discussed in the House, as has often happened in the past, the Press would be precluded from expressing sympathy with the supporters of the motion because, by so doing, they would be criticising the Chair.' 
That is quite a fair comment upon the noble Lord's prior statement.
'Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship between Parliament and the Nation.'
I do not think it was necessary to add even the word "modern."

Earl Winterton: No.

Mr. Davies: I repeat:
 'Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship between Parliament and the Nation.' 
Again, I absolutely agree. Then we come to the noble Lord's next remarks:
 On the other hand, a criticism, whether by a Newspaper or an Individual, charging the Occupant of the Chair with partiality or venality or unfitness for his Office, should, in your Committee's opinion, be treated as a breach of privilege.' 
Quite right. Does the comment go to this extent: that it charges the occupant of the Chair with partiality? If it does, then it is a breach of Privilege. If it charges the Chair with incompetence—that the occupant is not fit to be there—it is a breach of Privilege. It is the duty of the House to protect its Officers against such complaints which are made outside the House.
Now, I turn to the finding of the Committee—that is to say, of the majority. I quote now from paragraph 7 on page iv:
Your Committee had to consider whether the words which Lady Mellor admitted using and which she stated were correctly reported in the 'Sutton Coldfield News' constituted a breach of privilege. While Your Committee are not prepared to go so far as to say that any comment made upon the Chairman in his conduct of the business of the House, even though such comment be adverse, is necessarily a breach of the Privileges of the House…

That is exactly the same point as the noble Lord made. I am not at all sure that his words were not better than ours.
…undoubtedly a comment upon the conduct of the Chairman with regard to the business of the House which would be construed reasonably by those who hear or read such comment as charging him with partiality is a breach of the Privileges of the House.
There we are again in complete agreement in trying to state the law in regard to the action of the Chair and comments upon it. On that point I think we were in complete agreement with the noble Lord and others. Where did we differ? It was in applying our minds to the subject of the charge of breach of Privilege.
The noble Lord has referred to the evidence that was given by Lady Mellor. I will come to that in a moment. What was before us? If the House will turn to page 3 they will read:
 The Committee of Privileges, to whom the Matter of Complaint made upon the 18th day of June last, of the speech of Lady Mellor reported in the Sutton Coldfield News newspaper of the 16th day of June last, was referred "—
That was all that was before us, what was reported in that newspaper, and it will be found that the words are there set out in paragraph 2:
 The other day Major Milner (Deputy-Speaker) made a ruling and though he was within his rights Lady Mellor thought that, in the present circumstances, it was a deplorable one. He refused to permit certain amendments to the proposals to increase certain taxes to be discussed which normally would have been discussed. It seemed a particularly bad thing when a government with such a small majority was in power refused to admit a full and free discussion.
That was what we had to apply our minds to, and the question we had to put to ourselves was, in our opinion, was there a charge of partiality against the Chairman and would that be regarded by any reasonable person giving it a reasonable construction as a charge of partiality in his office? To anyone who reads it reasonably, what construction would he put on it? We came to the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that anyone reading that and giving it a reasonable construction would say that it in effect came to a charge of partiality on the part of the Chairman, and that was why the majority of the Committee came to its conclusion.
Having come to that conclusion, then comes the question of what we should report to the House should be the penalty.


A penalty might be a very grave one for a breach of Privilege, a very grave one indeed. The House has, for example, sent for a person who has committed a breach to stand at the Bar to be reproved from the Chair. When we come to consider it, we had to consider the question of the wrong and what had really happened.
As the noble Lord said, this was a small meeting, and the report was also in a rather small local paper. Then Lady Mellor, at the meeting itself, which unfortunately was not reported—the readers of the paper did not know that—when the question was put to her, said quite definitely, "I am making no charges"—I cannot remember the exact words" against the Chairman, he has always been completely impartial," or something of that sort.
We bore that in mind, and she came before us and repeated that. Under those circumstances, we said that this case could best be met by reporting to the House that no further action should be taken. That is why that was done. We had to consider, was there a breach of Privilege? Was there a real charge here against an Officer of the House with a duty to the House to protect it? Giving the best construction we could we came to the conclusion that there was. Having come to that conclusion, we then said that, taking everything into consideration, we did not think anything further should be done.
It was only on the question of that construction, of what would a reasonable person think in reading that, that we differed from the noble Lord. I am perfectly sure the noble Lord and his colleagues were just as conscientious in coming to their conclusions as we in coming to ours. It is a matter entirely for the House. We thought that we had given the one and only construction that any reasonable man would. That really is the whole position.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: The first thing which ought to be said by anyone representing the City of Leeds in this House is the pleasure we feel at the confidence of the Committee of Privileges, and indeed of the whole House, in the conduct of Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems to me a trifle ungracious that all those people who have spoken on behalf

of the Committee of Privileges have not make that remark before now.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, in addressing the House, and indeed the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) seemed far more keen to acquit Lady Mellor than they did—

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has just made an attack on me.

Mr. Pannell: I will give way if the noble Lord will let me finish my sentence. It was characteristic that he did not give way to me when I wanted to intervene on this point previously, so he might wait a minute.

Earl Winterton: Now will the hon. Member allow me?

Mr. Pannell: The noble Lord was making a great plea that anyone should be allowed to attack the Chair, that there was nothing infallible about the Chair. The only person in this House that is infallible is its Father.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has made a most uncalled-for attack on me. It is obvious that he has not listened to what I said. He said that I paid no tribute to Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I quote my words to him—I read them textually from my notes—that nothing I said was intended to reflect in any way upon the Chairman of Committees, whose
dignity, competence and fairness in the Chair I personally greatly admire.
I call on the hon. Member to withdraw, from a sense of fairness, the quite unwarranted statement he has made.

Mr. Pannell: I can only say that the noble Lord's statement was rather over-larded with special pleading for Lady Mellor rather than with any praise for Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member said that I paid no tribute to Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Pannell: Anyone who knows—I am speaking here as one who is not a member of the Committee of Privileges—the feeling occasioned in the House after Mr. Deputy-Speaker had ruled in the way he did on the Finance Bill will know full well that there was a good deal of feeling on the other side of the Chamber. No


one doubts that, nor has the Committee of Privileges held otherwise.
We at least—I hope I carry the House with me—should express our confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had a considerable record before he came to this House, and he has been the occupant of the junior Chair for many years. I think that a colleague of his from the same city should say these things, and they should be said in emphatic terms at the beginning of his speech.
I am not one of those people who ever raise the issue of Privilege here; therefore I am not under the strictures of the noble Lord in that regard. This matter of raising matters of Privilege seems to be confined to one or two Members on either side. I do not think that the question raised by matters of Privilege is popular with the whole House.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Is that really fair? Can my hon. Friend mention a single instance of an hon. Member in this Parliament having raised two points of Privilege? It is true that in the course of debates there are one or two outstanding spokesmen upon these issues, but my hon. Friend has done less than justice to his colleagues by saying that there are some of them who consistently initiate questions of Privilege.

Mr. Pannell: I accept the statement that there are one or two outstanding protagonists and leave it at that.
It is proposed to say that we have found that there is a breach of Privilege and that we intend to do nothing about it. The noble Lord asked what purpose was served by a decision of that sort. I think that a certain purpose is served. It is noteworthy that some people, especially the Communist Party, like to refer to places such as this, and to this place, in derogatory terms, referring to it as the "gas chamber." It is that sort of general contemptuous allusion that can easily be shared and easily taken up. Some of us felt even the other day on a much deeper matter of Privilege which was brought to an end rather peremptorily that the purpose of the House was not well served, because there was not an adequate debate upon it.
It is rather remarkable that throughout the Report of the Committee of Privileges there is shown a marked party line. I

wish to refer to page 11, paragraph 197. Here we can see the sharp distinction which arises between something said by Lady Mellor at that meeting and what was talked about afterwards. Lady Mellor made a flat statement which reflected upon the Chair. The Committee of Privileges agreed upon that.
Taking that with the fact that it is joined to a reference to the narrow majority of the present Labour Government, it indicates that it had a political connotation. But she suggested that she qualified that statement. She remembered that there was a question asked of her later on, and in her reply she paid tribute to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I will read what she said. I think that this refers to a conversation between Mr. William Strange and his editor. Apparently, Lady Mellor telephoned on the morning after the publication of the paper and said that it was a fair report. She was not blaming the newspaper. Then:
 I think he said, 'I am glad to tell you' "—
this is the editor speaking to the reporter—
'that Lady Mellor does not question the accuracy of the words that have been reported. The words were correctly reported.' 
Then the witness says:
 Yes, I remember that. Then did he say anything else to you about her wishing to know about anything else?
This was a prompting as to whether she asked any question.
 Yes, he did say again, I think: Are you quite sure "—
this is the editor jogging the reporter's memory.
 Are you quite sure that you have not got any shorthand notes of remarks in which she said (at least she thought she said) that the Deputy-Speaker was quite impartial in the position of Deputy-Speaker? Yes. Now, after he said that to you, what did you do?
And here comes the priceless thing.

Earl Winterton: This is the Home Secretary asking questions.

Mr. Pannell: That is right. I am assuming that hon. Members are following the Report. Now we come to the priceless thing. This is the reporter answering:
 I think I then thought that over, and I drafted in my mind some words that I thought were what she might have used, and what I thought I heard.


I suggest that that is a masterpiece, and I think we are reasonable to think that possibly some questions were thought up after the event.

Mr. Pickthorn: This is not a part of the business in which I was interested, but since the suggestion is being made, not for the first time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read out the last sentence of the Committee's Report in which the Committee who had the advantage of seeing and examining, cross-examining and re-examining the witnesses, came to a perfectly definite conclusion in this matter. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman wishes his argument, as I am sure he does, to be fair, he will now read the last sentence on page iv.

Mr. Pannell: I cannot withdraw what I have said. I have quoted the evidence, and I ask all hon. Members here who have taken sufficient interest to read the Report to agree that whether we accept the Report or not is a matter for the House. The Committee has reported, but surely we have a right to judge the evidence in our own way. I say that that evidence indicates that there were considerable second thoughts on the part of Lady Mellor about what she had said. If hon. Members read the evidence, they will find that no copy had been produced of the letter which is referred to in the evidence, and that this sort of thing came up subsequently.
I think our opinion on this matter would be the opinion that would have been given by the readers of the newspaper when they first read the Report, and that was that an attack had been made upon the Chairman of Ways and Means for a political motive, and that it was part of an attack on the Labour Party.

Earl Winterton: How terrible.

Mr. Pannell: It is not terrible at all. After all, why bother about the fact and suggest that the lady had a high opinion of Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Why suggest at all that she had a high opinion of him? I think she expressed contempt for him, and in terms with which many hon. Members opposite agreed. As a matter of fact, she expressed that view in a way which was followed up by hon. Members of the Committee when they took up sharp party divisions in the Committee itself following

the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has made a charge against members of the Select Committee on both sides of taking sharp party decisions. That is what I understood him to say, although, perhaps. I am wrong It is known that members of a Select Committee vote according to their judgment and not on party lines, and I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be resented as much by those who sit on his side of the House as it is by those who sit here.

Mr. Logan: Further to that point of order. Is it quite right for the noble Lord to get up because he finds fault. [Interruption.] This was an extraordinary thing. I am putting it to the Chair. You are not competent to judge, because you laughed.

Earl Winterton: I would call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member, after I put a point of order to you, has made an attack upon you and says that you are not competent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With regard to the noble Lord's point of order, I do not think the hon. Gentleman was imputing any motives.

Mr. Logan: I was making no attack on you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My remarks were addressed to the noble Lord.

Mr. Pannell: We have only to turn to the proceedings of the Committee to see that a remarkable coincidence—

Earl Winterton: I think you are a bit cracked.

Mr. Logan: On a point of order. It would appear to me that an alienist is required here. I do not want to dispute the merits of the mug that is cracked, but I want the noble Lord to withdraw his remark "You are cracked."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no objection.

Mr. Logan: I want the noble Lord to withdraw it; otherwise, I will remark that you are barmy.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman overheard a sotto voce remark of mine. If he chooses to make offensive attacks on hon. Members on this side of the House, he must not be too sensitive if he gets a smack in the jaw back.

Mr. Pannell: As I understood the noble Lord, he objected because I said that members of the Committee of Privileges appeared to vote according to their party affiliations. I am sorry, but that is a matter of fact, and not one of argument. Every vote appeared to find hon. Members in exactly opposite camps according to their party affiliations. I do not think there is any point in boggling about this. I think it adds considerable weight to what the noble Lord said on this matter of Privilege. It is being thought of less and less in an objective way. It gets responses across the Chamber dependent upon the persons raising the matter and upon the individuals concerned. I think that the whole matter of Privilege, together with many other things in this House, wants looking at again and wants to be re-codified.
I do not want to refer to the matter we debated earlier this evening, and it would be out of order if I did, but nobody would say that the approach to this House and such other Privileges was the same as when the first Speaker asked for right of access to it. All we have to do in a case like this is to decide whether the House has confidence in the occupant of the Chair. The noble Lord would have us believe that it is quite a simple matter to move the Chairman from the Chair. I do not think it is. I, of course, have not had his experience of that sort of thing, but obviously once we put anyone in the Chair he speaks in our name in every sense, and consequently he is vested with an authority and a prestige which we have to concede to him as we concede it to chairmen of other bodies, corporate or otherwise.
The value of this Report of the Committee of Privileges has surely been that it has exonerated the Chairman of Ways and Means and has not called his conduct into question. He did not effect the debate or precipitate it. It was the party opposite which challenged those Rulings. People in the country would not attack the Chair unless they were encouraged to do so by the speeches of hon. Members opposite, who argued all one afternoon on the Deputy-Chairman's interpretation of the Amendment, which they did not even carry to a vote.
Therefore, I think that many of us on this side will take this incident at its face value. I do not quarrel with the fact that Lady Mellor is a good Conservative, like

her husband, and expresses her point of view. I only say that we have got to be very sure that in doing that she does not give the impression that the Deputy-Chairman is the tool of this party.
It so happens, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you, if I may say so with respect—though I understand the antecedents of the occupants of the Chair, however lurid, should not be referred to at all—have a political past and a political present, just as has my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Major Milner). But we bring you both to the Chair as men of honour to advise us, and that is all we are concerned with. The charge here today is that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, did not act in accordance with the traditions of his office. The Committee has exonerated him from such a charge, and I do not think that anyone in the House would challenge the fact that he is a man of honour and acts with integrity and probity in discharging his duty.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like if I may to ask one or two questions about this Report, because in some respects I do not think it is as plain as it might be. The fist one may seem perhaps very technical. I do not know which right hon. Gentleman is going to give us his guidance later on but, whoever it is, I should like him to say whether on reflection a "breach of Privilege" is the right expression to use here.
I do not assert the opposite, but I should have been inclined to have thought that upon the premises and findings of the majority, and therefore of the Select Committee, I should have been inclined to think upon those premises and findings it ought to have been not "…constitute a breach of Privilege" but "constitute a contempt." I should have thought that that would have been the more accurate phrase. In all this matter accuracy is of so great importance that if upon reflection it is conceded there is something in this view I am very tentatively and I hope modestly putting forward, I hope that may be considered.
As my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said earlier in the evening, Privilege depends always on an immense string of precedents, none of them ever quite accurate, because, as the


hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) reminded us, the things to which the words apply always change between one generation and another; and that being so it is very important to get clarity where we can. With respect to another thing the hon. Member for Leeds, West, said, I think he was under a misunderstanding when he spoke of re-codification. There has never been codification of Privilege; in my understanding of Privilege—though I do not claim to have any learning in it now—I had some learning in it once—it is in essence incapable of codification, and we ought not to think of that as one of the possibilities. But it is not always incapable of clarity, and should have all the clarity it can. This, what seems to be a pedantic point, of what is a case of Privilege and what is contempt, is important if, as I think, clarity is what we ought to seek.
The second, perhaps smaller, point is the question of finding whether there is a breach of contempt and then recommending to the House that nothing should follow from that finding. I have not refreshed even the remains of my own learning. I have not even searched Erskine May or still less looked at my own notes or at other books. I hope this is right, but I shall not be ashamed if it is wrong. The Solicitor-General will correct me if I give a false impression, that the "Daily Worker" case was the first case of deciding there had been a breach of contempt but no action was to follow.
I am inclined to think that is true, but what I am certain is that both in weight and number the precedents both of action and argument in the past were on the whole on the side that the House ought not to find a breach or contempt unless it meant to go on to consequent action.

Mr. Clement Davies: Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)indicated dissent.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) to shake his head, but if he will look it up I think he will find that is so. Certainly Mr. Gladstone, certainly Mr. Pitt, and I think it may fairly be said all the most respectable of the great figures of Parliamentary history who have talked on this, have talked in the sense I have indicated. I am laying my flanks open rather,

because I have not provided myself with references, but the House will do me the justice that I do not generally assert these things without being reasonably certain.
Here I come to a matter in which we are in very great difficulty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery said what was before the Committee, and all that was before the Committee, was the paragraph printed, I think, the fourth down, on page iii.He said that upon any constructions that paragraph must be taken to be, to put it roughly, so offensive that notice must be had of it. I think I am putting his argument correctly. My trouble with that last sentence is that there is not any possible construction of it. I have read it upside down and inside out.

Dr. Morgan: What about right way up?

Mr. Pickthorn: And right way up first. I generally begin that way, unlike my compatriot, my slightly overdressed, compatriot. But finding no way of construing it that way, I set it on its head, and inside out, and still could not construe it. I say this in praise of the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, that when he read it out he found an entirely new way of reading it that had not occurred to me at all. He read it, as far as I can imitate his intonation, and the whole argument turns on intonation so it is going to be rather difficult for HANSARD, as follows:

" It seemed a particularly had thing when a Government with such a small majority was, in power, refused to admit full and free discussion."

I never thought of reading it in that way.

Mr. C. Davies: Nor did I.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not listen to himself as carefully as I listened to him. That really is the way in which he did read it, and I appeal to such hon. Members as were here when he spoke to say whether or not that is the way in which he read it. It almost seems to make sense if it is read like that. In no other way that I read it can I make any sense out of it at all.
This is admitted by Lady Mellor to be a fair report of what she said, and


I think it is very modest of her, because I can hardly believe that it is exactly what she said. We all in fact utter sentences which are not grammatical or construable at the time and which, if written down exactly, cannot be construed afterwards. Perhaps I have done it myself in the last five minutes or so; if not, I am sure to do so if I go on for another five minutes—no doubt, because I am not such a good speaker as hon. Members opposite. That may happen to anybody.
But we are then told that only these words were before the Committee, and also that the effect upon the audience must be determined not only from these words but from the other words, the answer to the question. I think that on reflection hon. Members opposite may agree that a great deal of doubt has been thrown not quite fairly upon the other words. I do not know whether the other words were exactly reported, but this I do know, that the Committee apparently unanimously found that they were. They say quite plainly that "Lady Mellor paid a tribute to the Chairman," and so on. There is no doubt at all that we cannot conduct this argument except upon some agreed view of the facts, and I do not see how we can have any agreed view of the facts which is not the agreed view of the Committee.
It may be unfortunate that the second part was not reported, but it seems to me quite certain that anybody who says that the effect upon the readers of the paper depends upon the failure to report that, is really rather estopped by holding the printed words against the speaker, using the first part of the words only, and against the speaker; especially when the first part of the words are not construable. I defy anybody to find exactly what were the words said from what the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery says were the only things they had to consider.
I understand the noble Lord does not propose to divide the House, and I do not know that I propose to divide the House. I think the whole matter was a very small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "I think it was a small matter. I am entitled to think that.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)indicated assent.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very glad to see that I have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House. Other hon. Members are entitled to opposite opinions. I think that the whole thing was a very small matter. It is a misunderstanding to suppose that the words put the Chairman of Ways and Means in the dock, so to speak, and that the Chairman has been exonerated by this Report. I think that is nonsense. That point of view was put by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needed exonerating, nor do I think this the appropriate way in which to exonerate him. That was not in question. It seems to me a misunderstanding of the matter.
I think it was a very small affair. I do not think in strict language it was a breach of Privilege. If it was anything, and if the House is doing anything by reprobating it, it seems to me that what it is doing is exercising the right which, I think we may now say it quite illegally and unhistorically usurps, of acting like a court and punishing for contempt. I think that is what the House is doing now, if it is doing anything.
For all these considerations I could have wished that this Report had not been presented to us in this form, and although perhaps it is not worth the bother of a Division, I think it is rather regrettable and not very accurate and, I do not say it is disreputable, but not carrying conviction. Lastly—and this is my very last sentence—the immediate point is that the effect of the sentence as reported is not construable.

Mr. Logan: Mr. Logan rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: I cannot give way now. That fact seems to me to make the general tenor of the Report, if it is not a breach of Privilege to say so, rather meaningless. Now I shall sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Home Secretary.

Mr. Logan: I wanted to ask a question of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the Home Secretary.

Mr. Logan: The hon. Member for Carlton gave way to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the Home Secretary.

9.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) has focused effectively some of the essential points in this discussion. I shall try to reply to the three points which I think he endeavoured to put before us clearly. On the first point, whether the word "privilege" is the proper word, may I say that I was inclined to agree with him in drafting the Report in the first place that the proper phrase was that it was contempt? Erskine May, however, says this—and I would listen to an argument from the hon. Member for Carlton against Erskine May, but I should not venture to advance one myself:
 Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege.
That is page 235, and it gives a reference back to page 126, where he lists the breaches of Privilege, and that confirms that point of view. If I could have the hon. Member's attention—

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has it.

Mr. Ede: As far as the wording of the Report was concerned, I think on the authority which is generally quoted we took a sound line. The second point was, why did we do nothing? I am bound to say that there are more precedents than that which the hon. Member quoted for doing nothing, and I have one here which was raised by Mr. Grenfell, who was at that time Member for the City of London, who called attention to some comments by the "Evening News" on a ruling of Mr. Fitzalan Hope, afterwards Lord Rankeillour, who was Chairman of Ways and Means:
 That the passage in the 'Evening News' newspaper of Friday last constitutes a libel on the Chairman of Ways and Means and is a gross breach of the privileges of this House.
After a short discussion the Motion was carried and no further action was taken. I can quote another case within my own recollection. Towards the end of the last House, the hon. Member who now represents the Northfield Division of Birmingham (Mr. Blackburn), raised a question of Privilege with regard to the "Daily Worker," which he alleged had misreported him. The present Foreign Secretary up to that time had been a member of the Committee of Privileges.

He suggested that there was really nothing in this, and he did not think it was a subject for the Committee of Privileges. However, the House decided that it should go to the Committee, and I eventually replaced my right hon. Friend and took the Chair at the Committee.
We had to report then that any report of the proceedings of the House was a breach of Privilege, but I am quite sure that a great many hon. Members would be very disappointed if the newspapers took fright at that and declined to report the speeches of hon. Members on the ground that they might get into trouble for publishing a report of the proceedings of Parliament. We could not but report to the House that this was a breach of Privilege, but I am sure that even the persons most opposed to the "Daily Worker" did not want to bring the editor to the Bar of the House and reprove him or decide on some more dreadful punishment. Therefore, we had to recommend to the House that no action should be taken.
I agree with what has been said from both sides of the House, that there has been too much sensitiveness on this question of breach of Privilege. The trouble is that when there is a technical breach of Privilege and the Committee charged with the duty of examining a statement to see if it is a breach of Privilege finds on technical grounds that it is, the Committee is then confronted with the problem of what we can do in modern circumstances to the person who has been guilty of it.
That is one reason why I think individual Members should be somewhat chary about raising breaches of Privilege which are recognised from the first as not being too serious, because they land the Committee of Privileges with a difficulty of recommending to the House what effective action should be taken. In this case the Committee came to the conclusion that there was a breach of Privilege by an imputation on the impartiality of the Chair. They had, therefore, to report accordingly to protect an officer whom we have placed in a very difficult and responsible position.
It is admitted that if a reflection on the Chair for being partial could be allowed and found not to be a breach


of Privilege, one might then get a wearing away of the protection of the Chair, and people who were guilty of doing something more serious would then say, "But in the Lady Mellor case you found there was no breach of Privilege. Therefore, since we only did a little worse than that, we also ought not to be found guilty of breach of Privilege." That, of course, is on the assumption that the Committee was right in finding that there was a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Pickthorn: I could see the whole of that argument if the case were proceeding against the printer and publisher, but if it be held, as it is held by the Committee, that Lady Mellor subsequently, though not in the course of the same speech but in the course of the same proceedings, used words that showed she did not intend to reflect upon the Chair, I do not see how on that argument it could be found that Lady Mellor was guilty of a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Ede: I was going to deal with the point, but I did want to emphasise first of all the point with which I had been dealing, that it is perfectly justifiable to find—and there are plenty of precedents for it—that there is technically a breach of Privilege but that it is not anything that the House should visit with any penalty or any greater expression of displeasure than the mere finding that there is a breach of Privilege.
The hon. Member also said that he could find no sense in the final sentence of the quotation. Hon. Members who have read carefully the evidence will know that, in fact, the reporter had to explain to us that it was not a correct rendering into oratio obliquaof the words actually used by the speaker. I think that the words actually used by the speaker and that were heard by the audience and the reporter were a little stronger in criticism and linked the matter up with the Chair more effectively than the words which were printed in the paper.

Mr. Pickthorn: Mr. Pickthorn rose—

Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I do not try to dodge any part of the argument. I am coming to the other part.
I think, therefore, that we must assume that at that stage of the meeting, at any

rate, what the hearers had heard was something that, in the view of the Committee—which was reinforced by our getting the actual words that were spoken, which the reporter read out to us from his notes—was a reflection on the Chair.
I am bound to say—here I think I speak for the Committee—that we did not think that the final statement made by the lady did remove entirely from the minds of the hearers any impression that they might have formed, and that was one reason why we came to the finding that we did. I do not accept the suggestion that there is some bad faith about this matter, and that this was an afterthought.
The reporter, if I may say so, was a very unsatisfactory witness because, at one stage, he told us he had taken no notes of Lady Mellor's answer to the question and then, at a later stage, said he got the first part. Then the wind was blowing, and I understand that some birds were singing —it was apparently a very enjoyable garden party—and the reporter did not go on taking his notes apart from these sentences in the speech. He was not a very satisfactory witness, and at the end of the day he did not understand that he had altered the sense of the speech by the correction he made in transcribing it into oratio obliqua.
I have tried to deal with three distinct points that were raised by the hon. Member for Carlton. I think that the House would be ill-advised to attempt to do anything more than declare this to be a breach of Privilege. I hold very strongly that we do not want to have brought before us here extempore speeches made by unpractised orators—I hope I am doing the lady no injustice by saying that: she was a very pleasant witness—at small meetings, and reported in obscure local papers. I do not think I am saying anything unkind to the speaker in saying that.
This House is a very great place—it can be a very great place—and we ought to be very careful about how far we allow speeches of the kind that I have just tried to describe to be made the subject of questions in this House. It is unfortunate that in order to protect ourselves and the House—perhaps it would be better to say "protect the House and the future"—when a technical breach of Privilege is brought to our attention we have to take notice of it.
We have to declare as breaches of Privileges things which I am sure were not uttered with any thought of the dignity of the House in the mind of the speaker. If we took down the reports of speeches made in certain places in the county of London and the City of Westminster at week-ends and went through them to find out whether or not there was a breach of Privilege in them, I wonder how many we should find were quite clear of that charge?
I presided over the Committee, and they gave great attention to this matter. I think the noble Lord was rather nearer right than he was given credit for when he disputed the fact that the division on the Committee was on real party lines. I hope I am not saying anything to which my colleagues would object. There was a long discussion on the Committee before we passed the Resolution which was moved, as the Report reveals, by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), to which the noble Lord moved the Amendment which he read to us. If in the end the division took place so as to put the Members of two parties on one side and the Members of another party on the other, we did not at any rate start off or conduct the discussion on any party lines; there was a genuine effort to get to the sense of this sentence, to the obscurity of which the hon. Member for Carlton has directed our attention.

Dr. King: Will my right hon. Friend explain why there was even a party division in the Committee on paragraphs 2 and 3, which are mere statements of fact.

Mr. Ede: I do not know why the division occurred there. Perhaps I ought to say, in explanation, that I was placed in a very difficult position. On the first day when we passed the Resolution there was a clear majority, and the Chairman did not have to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) suffered a bereavement, and the consequence was that he was unable to turn up the next day. I then took advice as to my duty as Chairman, and I was told that the Report must not stultify the decision that the Committee had already reached. I think I should probably have voted the same way as I did, whether I had received that advice

or not, but it was clearly my duty to see that the Report did not stultify a decision which had been reached.
I agree with several hon. Members on both sides of the House who have suggested that this is not a large case. I am quite certain that there was no real malice or attempt to bring the House into derision in the speech that was made. But I am quite certain that the effect on the minds of the hearers of the passage referred to us must have been to make them think that the conduct of the Chair in this matter was not one of impartiality. That being the case, the Committee came to the conclusion they did, and they regarded all the surrounding circumstances as warranting them in suggesting to the House that, although a breach of Privilege had been committed, we might very well leave the matter with that declaration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the House not ready to come to a decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

An Hon. Member: Leave it where it is.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: An hon. Member below the Gangway says, "Leave it where it is." May I explain why I cannot? At the moment the House is engaged in a kind of judicial process. We are being asked to approve a report of the Committee of Privileges finding that a certain person outside has been guilty of a breach of Privilege.
Those of us who, having listened to the whole debate so far, are not convinced that any breach of Privilege has been committed, are bound to say so because we are concerned [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do wish hon. Members opposite could get the idea of Divisions out of their minds for one moment when they are performing a judicial duty. It is our duty to the dignity of this House to make quite sure that we do not do an injustice to any individual outside, and it is a serious thing to find that any person has committed a breach of the privileges of this House.
Secondly, if we are, as I believe, creating a new precedent in the law of the Privilege of this House, we have to


be careful about the creation of a new precedent which may lead to untold consequences in the future. Therefore, may I say as briefly as I can why I do not agree with the very fair and reasonable speech of the Home Secretary? First, I entirely agree with him, as against my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), that there are precedents for finding a breach of Privilege coupled with a decision to take no further action. On that point I think my hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Logan: On a point of order, Sir, I should like your Ruling. It is now being argued by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the decision reached by the Committee is not an accurate one or one that ought to be accepted. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with the case?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have not heard the debate, but one is entitled to disagree with the Report of the Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may respectfully say so, Sir, the Motion before the House is "That this House approves the Report of the Committee." It is surely material, if one does not approve of the Report of the Committee, to say why. Indeed, I know no other purpose for the House being in Session at this moment.
I agree with the Home Secretary on this point. Of course, I agree with his second general proposition, that reflections upon the Chair may—and I stress the may—be punished as a breach of Privilege or, as my hon. Friend more accurately put it, as a contempt of this House. But of course the point, and the point where we are creating a precedent, is the degree of reflection upon the Chair which can or cannot constitute such a breach of Privilege. Where I thought the right hon. Gentleman left the House, in deciding aye or no whether to approve the Report of the Committee, in a wholly unsatisfactory position, was when he referred to those words in the newspaper report, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are so difficult to construe as they are set out in the Report of the Committee.
What the right hon. Gentleman said was this: that in fact he believed that the words used on the particular occasion were a little more severe than the

words set out in the Report. That leaves the House in a wholly unsatisfactory position. The words set out in the Report were the words which were referred to the Committee on, I think, 18th June. They are the words which the Committee themselves quote in their Report to the House. Surely, we must judge—it is the only thing on which we can judge—whether we think there is here a breach of Privilege, not on some unspecified words which in the Home Secretary's opinion were a little more severe, but on the words which the Committee have themselves reported to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to the page in the reporter's evidence in which the reporter—I did not have the advantage of hearing him as the right hon. Gentleman did—very fairly indicated some doubt as to the phraseology used. But if the Committee of Privileges came to the conclusion that the words used were other than those set out in the Report, they should have inserted them in the Report. That would have made the task of the House, in deciding the infinitely delicate matter as to whether there is here a breach of Privilege, a good deal more easy than it is now.
I agree also with the Home Secretary that this is a very small matter. Like every hon. Member who has spoken, except the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), I think it is a great pity that this matter was ever raised as a question of Privilege, and I think so for two reasons. Any hurt that these words may have done to the House or to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has been infinitely increased by transferring words spoken to 35 women in a garden, and reported in a newspaper which is not, perhaps, one of the colossi of Fleet Street, into what has become front page news in every national newspaper. That has been the direct consequence of raising this matter as a question of Privilege, and I regret it.
I regret it, secondly, because I feel, like most hon. Members, that most people outside feel that it does not add to their respect for this House that the House, against the sombre background of world affairs at present should be concerning itself at all with Privilege matters of this kind.
I think that our responsibility in this quasi-judicial function of ours is in this case heavier than in any other Privilege case in this Parliament or the last, and for this reason. Here we have a case in which that much respected Committee the Committee of Privileges only decided that there was a breach of Privilege by five votes to four, and in which every Clause of their Report, except the purely formal one, was carried solely on the casting vote of the Chairman. That must impose on the House in its examination of this matter a much bigger responsibility than when the Committee which is entrusted with these matters comes with their unanimous report to the House.
We are bound to respect the views of the four right hon. Gentlemen who found themselves in the minority in this issue and who voted for a minority report, finding that there was no breach of Privilege. We are bound to take this into consideration, and we cannot therefore give to this Report the more or less tacit acceptance which, I hope, we generally will give to Reports from the Committee of Privileges when they find themselves able to come to a unanimous or nearly unanimous conclusion.
If there is here a breach of Privilege, we are forced to consider what comments upon the actions of the Chair are permissible and what are not. I am not sure that I altogether like the words in the Report by which the Committee do not appear to have come to a conclusion aye or no, as to whether any words spoken in criticism of decisions of the Chair would necessarily be free from the imputation of Privilege. The words are used in the second sentence of the seventh paragraph and seem to leave it apparent that in the minds of the Committee it is at least possible that any criticism, however temperate and well expressed, of a decision of the Chair might constitute a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Logan: I want to know, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member is putting forward. Is he arguing that if there is not a unanimous agreement there should be no decision of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will want to know, and I shall want to know.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may respectfully say so, the hon. Member for the

Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) would have a better chance of knowing what I was about to argue if he would allow me to argue it.

Mr. Manuel: I would be grateful—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that I cannot give way at this point. The House will recall that I generally give way, but I have been submitted to two attempts in the guise of a point of order in the course of what I hope will be a brief but must necessarily be a closely knit argument. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Member, but I cannot be continually distracted from it.
The rightness or wrongness of this decision bears on the degree of criticism of the Chair which is committed. We have here a case in which the lady herself in evidence to the Committee summed up her intention. It is at Question No. 223 in the Report—
 May I just emphasise that I did question Major Milner's judgment, but never his impartiality.
It is my submission that it is open to persons outside in respectful and courteous terms to question the judgment of decisions of the Chair so long as no motive is imputed. It is important that that view should be expressed and put as fully on record as possible.
I do not think it is necessary to argue at great length why that should be so, but I am bound to remind the House how much more touchy we seem to be getting in these days than we used to be. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent in 1928, or 1929. I have one here from 1st March, 1929, when it so happened that the person concerned was a lady—now, unfortunately, no longer with us—who as a right hon. Lady sat on the Front Bench opposite in the early part of the last Parliament—Miss Ellen Wilkinson. She wrote an article, an extract of which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1st March, 1929, on the subject of the then Chairman of Ways and Means, in which she said:
 This contempt for the Constitution of the House of Commons was shown in a marked way by the Chairman of Ways and Means in a ruling of so partisan a character that it would take one's breath away, if the Tory Government had not, by this time, almost exhausted one's capacity for indignation.


She went on to say:
 What kind of ruling is this? What possible respect can be left for a Chairman who so completely flouts the Rules of Order? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1929; Vol. 225, c. 2334.]
The House may be interested to know what happened. A Motion that this was a contempt of the House was moved by Mr. Grotrian. As the right hon. Lady—then the hon. Lady—was not present, the matter was adjourned to the 4th March, when the hon. Lady said that she desired to express her regret that she had made the criticism outside the House, instead of according to the established custom of the House. She made no withdrawal of the substance of her words, and regretted only their occasion. The Motion was withdrawn and no action taken.
The words were wildly beyond anything attributed to Lady Mellor. I quote that as showing that this extreme touchiness —in this case in respect of the Chair and, in others, in respect of hon. Members —for which there is no authority in precedent is in itself a lamentable tendency. How far is it to go? If there is not to be a reasoned criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means, can it be made of the Chairman of a Standing Committee, or of a Chairman of a Select Committee and so on? How far does this kind of thing go? If it is to go so far are we not derogating very considerably from the rights of the public to comment on matters of public controversy?
One is bound to recall that the particular criticism made was not so irrelevant to political controversy at the time as to give any indication of malice. The criticism was made in a speech on the very day that the particular decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means referred to was the subject matter of a Motion placed upon the Order Paper of this House by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot go into the merits of that, but all I am concerned to say is that it was a matter then of public interest, public concern and public controversy to which reference was made.
The House must be consistent on this matter. The words used—the first part of the alleged breach of Privilege—were "very deplorable." It so happens that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th July, c. 2065—it was in point of fact in the

early hours of 25th July—the hon. Member for Oldham West (Mr. Leslie Hale) referred to a Ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker, as an "unfortunate observation." Although on the point being taken up, the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled that out of order, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, was neither called upon to nor did he in fact withdraw those words. The words are very similar, "unfortunate" and "deplorable," in connection with a Ruling of the Chair.
It really would be highly inconsistent for this House to allow one of its own Members, on the Floor of the House, so to criticise a Ruling of the Chair while it punished as a breach of Privilege somewhat similar words spoken by somebody outside this House. Really the House must apply, in its power to punish strangers for breaches of its Privileges, rules at any rate no more arbitrary than it applies to punish its own Members who use similar expressions about the occupants of the Chair.
I do not need to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said about the other words alleged to constitute a breach of Privilege. I tried to construe them. I think that they could reasonably bear two constructions. They could bear the construction that the Government had refused full discussion or they could bear the construction that the Chairman ought, in the selection of Amendments, to have taken into account the narrowness of the Government's majority. Either of those interpretations is, in my respectful submission, consistent only with those words not amounting to a breach of Privilege or anything of the sort.
I hope that we are not going to use this immense engine of Privilege—a vital instrument in great matters for the defence of this House and of its ancient rights —about words of this sort; that we shall not suggest that the occupants of the Chair of this House are so vulnerable to criticism that they cannot discharge their functions—their highly important functions—if criticisms of this sort are permitted by outside persons.
I believe that all occupants of the Chair are too far above such weakness to be upset or perturbed by words of this sort. The only justification this House has for Privilege, the only basis of Privilege, is the right to protect the


efficacy and proper conduct of our own proceedings.
No one outside a madhouse would suggest that these words affected or could possible affect the Chairman of Ways and Means or any other occupant of the Chair in the discharge of their duties. For that reason it seems wrong to find that this is a breach of Privilege, and I should like to see this Report rejected.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: In four years' service on the Committee of Privileges, I have never previously intervened in a debate, but I think that after the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) some reply is called for, because a considerable attack has been made after the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
We are all most anxious that matters of trivial or seemingly trivial importance should not have the attention of this House and the publicity of this great institution if in the event it serves no useful purpose. We all agree that there may be something in the present position and in the suggestion that hon. Members are becoming increasingly sensitive to criticism, and so on. But the subject we are discussing tonight is not a trivial matter. It is a matter which involves the occupant of the Chair.
Under Standing Order 31, we invest the occupant of the Chair—Mr. Speaker himself or the Chairman of Ways and Means —with the great honour and the great responsibility of directing our affairs. As I understand the Standing Order, it lies within the power of the Chair to select certain Amendments which may be put on the Order Paper, and no question can be asked of the occupant of the Chair. We need not go into the whole background, but I suggest that the words used by Lady Mellor in this case undoubtedly cast a reflection upon the Chair.
I think that they must be related to the last few words in the report which seem to identify the Chairman with the Government—with a party Government. They seem to show conclusively that he was in the pocket of a certain party and that he was in fact showing partiality. This is not a small matter. Once the impartiality of the Chair is called into question, the whole process of democratic

Government and discussion is brought into disrepute.
I suggest that this is something more than the report in an obscure newspaper of a small meeting in a garden. From our point of view, it is a matter of definite duty to say that, from our experience, the Chair has operated impartially. I cannot take the view which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames seemed to take. He quoted the words of Miss Ellen Wilkinson in 1929, but I think that the circumstances there were very different.
We will take the definition of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He sought to move an Amendment to the findings of the Committee. That Amendment was not accepted. He said that unless there can be shown to be partiality, unless there is something venal and there is some unfitness for office, in some circumstances it is not a breach of Privilege to criticise the Chair.
When we carefully study the words contained in the newspaper report, there can be no doubt in our minds, or in the minds of anybody reading the report impartially, that there was a reflection on the Chair to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to take a partial and deliberate course to satisfy some faction in the House. It was nothing less than that. Therefore, this falls within the noble Lord's definition that there was partiality.
If, on the other hand, it is argued that these words do not convey that meaning, it means that the occupant of the Chair was unfit for the job. So, on the second count, the occupant of the Chair is called to account. I suggest that there was no evidence at all that on this occasion the occupant of the Chair exceeded his duty, or acted impartially, or in any way showed that he was unfit to occupy the Chair.
I confess that, after hearing all the arguments, I was greatly surprised that there should have been this narrow division in the final vote. It is not for me to go into all the transactions which took place within the Committee, but, from listening to the arguments and hearing the witnesses, I thought that we all, with the exception of the noble Lord, took the view that there was undoubtedly a technical breach of Privilege. It was as clear


as the sun rising in the morning, but, when the vote came, we found that what happened was as has been reported for us all to see.
I hope I have not unduly wearied the House, but I think this matter is of some importance to the House and is not a trivial matter. We must take our own views whether Lady Mellor wished to be malicious, or whether it does this House any good to give all this "puff" to this case, but I do not think that it is the simple matter which the hon. Gentleman tried to make out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

" That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."

Orders of the Day — NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD, WILLESDEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Orbach: I wish to raise a matter which has concerned my constituents for a number of years, and particularly in the last few months. It is a matter which is not unfamiliar to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because not only have representations been made to him by the local authority, the Willesden Borough Council, and the residents concerned through their local Neasden Residents' Association, but I myself have raised the issue at Question time on two occasions in the last few months.
In the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1934, the Minister was given authority to make regulations with regard to the speed limit on vehicles on the roads, with regard to traffic signs and pedestrian crossings, and, in the Act of 1934, the speed limit was reintroduced. The Minister was given power to limit the speed of cars and lorries in built-up areas.
On the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister, the late lamented Mr. Oliver Stanley, defined a built-up area as a place where a street lighting system is in force. He went on, after making this statement, to clarify his definition by ruling out new by-pass roads where lighting had been arranged by a benevolent

local authority, but where no houses or shops existed. He laid down that, in his opinion, a built-up area where a speed limit ought to be in force included even a village street if, in fact, there were houses or shops on both sides of the road.
The stretch of the North Circular Road which is in my constituency and about which I am concerned tonight was designed as a dual carriageway on which traffic could move unimpeded from east to west or west to east north of London. The first point I want to make is that the phrase "north of London" is out of date. The boroughs of Wembley, Edgware and Finchley are all to the north of the North Circular Road at this point. The North Circular Road from Staples Corner to the Neasden Circus must be included within the Central London Traffic Area, and it must be included for another reason.
The Minister will be aware that the volume of traffic on the road between the two points which I have mentioned is equal to the traffic passing at any particular time along one of the main thoroughfares of this country—Oxford Street. The original intention of the planners may well have been to make this a through road, but today it has other functions which the Minister ought to bear in mind when considering the needs—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. Orbach: —both of motorists and of pedestrians. Even at the time of its creation in 1937, shops and houses had existed for 10 years on both sides of the road. There were scores of semi-detached homes and shops from which it was convenient for people to purchase the products they required.
If we pass down this road from east to west we find that on the other side there are playing fields leading down to the Welsh Harp where our local Polytechnic find it convenient to play football in the winter and cricket in the summer. Close to this is a sports ground provided by the local borough council, and on a corner of the street further west is the public library. When one comes to the Neasden Circus itself there are scores of small semidetached houses. On the south side of


the road we find many large modern factories, a school in which nearly 1,000 children are accommodated, more homes, shopping parades, bus stops, and a further shopping parade at Neasden Circus itself. I should also have said that on the north side of the road there is a further school available to infants, juniors and seniors where almost another 1,000 children are accommodated.
It is because of these facts and further difficulties with regard to Neasden Circus itself that I ask the Minister to give very serious thought to the wishes of the neighbourhood. At the Neasden Circus traffic roundabout, where up to the present the Minister has refused to install traffic lights, the fast-moving traffic along the North Circular road going from east to west and west to east infiltrates with the slow moving traffic coming from Dudden Hill Lane in the south and Neasden Lane in the north, and both these roads which are almost as wide as the North Circular Road itself are subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit.
The Neasden Road Safety Committee has with monotonous regularity described this place as the black spot in the borough for accidents. In response to representation made to the local authorities by the Braintcroft and District Residents' Association, the Minister was kind enough to send his official to look at the spot and to make recommendations to him, and the following sentence appeared in a letter dated 26th May, 1951, which was written to the Residents' Association:
 Provided that reasonable care is exercised there is no great difficulty in crossing the road in safety.
I presume that this statement was made following a visit by the official who observed in conversation with members of the Residents' Association that there were gaps of 10 seconds between moving vehicles which should give sufficient time for anyone to cross one carriageway. Perhaps it was also because of that, that the Minister had erected in the centre of the roadway wire fencing to stop people dashing right across the road.
We consider that the statement of the official was most unfortunate, and I would remind my right hon. Friend of what was said by a predecessor of his to whom I have already referred, Mr. Oliver Stanley, on the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. He said that a built-up area

which is all houses is where the unexpected usually happens, and I am sure his remarks would have been emphasised in connection with the road with which I am dealing.
 It is there "—
he said—
 that the errand-boy comes round on his bicycle with both hands crossed in front of him. It is there that the pedestrian with an umbrella over her face suddenly walks on to the middle of the road. If you are going at 20 to 30 miles an hour with your vehicles under control, there is a chance that you will be able to save those people from the consequences of their own mistake. But if you are going at 50 to 60 miles an hour they are dead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1934; Vol. 288, c. 172.]
It is because people have been maimed and people are dead that my constituents and myself feel so very strongly on this matter. I hope it is not in bad taste to say that the child of five who was killed within the past six months along that road could not read the letter from the official of the Ministry which was directed to the Braintcroft and District Residents' Association. But the fact is that a distinguished Member of this House who happens to be a constituent of mine will not allow his child to cross this one road of all the roads he permits his nine-year-old child to cross in the Willesden area.
I am told that when an investigation committee of the Willesden Borough Council visited the site, they were eyewitnesses of a fatal accident. I will not give details of accidents which have occurred there and I will not apportion the blame. Pedestrians are often foolhardy and there are people who never ought to be behind the wheel directing what is a convenient means of locomotion but is also a powerful death-dealing machine.
I understand the Minister is advised by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Police on this matter. After the debate we listened to earlier this evening, it would be remiss of me to say anything about the police. But they can be wrong and their judgment can be wrong, and I think that whenever the Minister has to consider the police or the residents he ought to consider the needs of residents and users first and last.
To come to an instance of police judgment, each morning I travel to this


House through Hampstead Road and I pass from Mornington Crescent to Drummond Street, a distance of 300 to 400 yards. Very properly, because there are houses and shops on both sides of the road, a 30 miles an hour speed limit is strictly enforced. There are traffic lights and within that distance of 400 yards there are nine pedestrian crossings.
Perhaps it would be more apposite to quote a further stretch of the North Circular Road—at Falloden Way, less than two miles east of the area I am describing. There is a garden suburb there, but there is no school. In the area I am discussing there are two schools. There are no playing fields there but there are shops and for some reason—whether because of the difference in income levels or not, I do not know—there is a 30 miles an hour limit rigidly enforced by signs and there are traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
Coming back to the North Circular Road we are dealing with a densely-populated urban development. Children must go to school. They are entitled to recreation. Mothers must shop and adults of both sexes must work. These people who want to cross the road are engaged on lawful business. Perhaps they want to buy a loaf of bread or want to get a meal, and I remind the House that there are two transport cafés along this road and lorries parked outside them impede visibility. People are entitled to play cricket and to borrow books from, and I hope return them to, the library. They are certainly entitled to go to and from their own homes.
The careful motorist is advised to keep moving quickly. If he dawdles at 40 miles an hour driving a modern motor car and sees a pedestrian crossing in front, if his reaction is good he will be able to pull up within 100 feet if he applies his brakes immediately. If he is moving at the modern cruising speed of 60 miles an hour, which is permitted on this road, he will be able to pull up within three seconds and in that time will have travelled 260 feet.
With all these facts in mind, and representing the residents of this area, I ask the Minister to help us by reconsidering this matter. We have suggested that the roundabout at Neasden Circus, which,

because of traffic jams, frequently employs four policemen and occasionally eight, be removed and that traffic lights be installed until such time as our capital expenditure programme will permit of a fly-over being built. We suggest that the traffic lights which were previously at the dangerous Brook Road point be re-installed.
If my right hon. Friend will do these things he will certainly help the present situation in the borough. I suggest that he should declare the whole road from Staples' Corner past Neasden Circus to Brentfield Road a 30 miles an hour limit area, and should place at least three pedestrian crossings from Staples' Corner to Neasden Circus. As for the Circus itself, with a branch food office, a post office and a cinema, very special measure must be taken. I ask the Minister to agree to these immediate measures. If he demurs, I would beg him to visit the road with me, and I would ask at the same time that his most agile officials should cross the road while we are there.
I am supported in my plea for reconsideration of this matter by a petition which I have not yet had the opportunity of presenting to him, but I certainly hope I shall before a few days have passed, with the signatures of 6,749 residents in this area. I hope that the signatures and the statement that I have made will be accepted by the Minister as an earnest of our requests.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach). It is not my intention to cover the ground which he has already traversed, but I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend the fact that he can no longer afford to make a decision based upon evidence provided by any of his officials. We have to face the fact that since this road was made, there has been a tremendous amount of building on each side.
When the road was first built it was understood that it would be part of the North Circular Road upon which there would be no speed limit. That would have been all right if we had not permitted ribbon development to take place. But now we have an enormous population on each side of the road, and, as


my hon. Friend has already said, mere are two schools, a public library and a recreation ground, and children go to and fro each hour of the day. We, as adults, know how difficult it is to judge when to cross a road and when not to cross it when there is such fast-moving traffic going along. It is utterly impossible for young people or elderly people to judge when and when not to attempt to cross the road.
There are not sufficient pedestrian crossings, and those which are there are very much misplaced. One has only to go to the roundabout on that road to find the pedestrian crossings almost right up against the roundabout itself. That in itself is evidence of the fact that it is the cause of a great deal of the holding up of traffic going round the roundabout.
These pedestrian crossings should be put further from the roundabout, but the roundabout itself is no solution to the problem of the fast-moving and slow-moving traffic coming from the four ways. The right hon. Gentleman should at least give earnest consideration to the need for putting traffic lights there in place of the roundabout. I am certain that with the experience he has already had in his office for so many years, he would be convinced, if he went to see this stretch of road, of the need for the steps suggested by my hon. Friend—steps which have been outlined by the Ratepayers' Association and other associations established for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the citizens living in the area.
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should have been remiss had I not stayed this evening and added my few words to the statement made by my hon. Friend. I entreat the Minister, if he possibly can, to go to see this problem for himself. I am certain that he will be convinced of the need for drastic steps to be taken in order that lives may be saved. Lives might have been saved in the past, but we can take steps now only to save possible loss of life in the future. I entreat him to give his earnest consideration to this problem.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Both my hon. Friends who represent Willesden have invited me to visit this stretch of the North Circular Road. As a matter of fact, in the course of my motoring life I have travelled

over this road very frequently. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), I have observed the character of this road and the surrounding district changing over the course of years, and I frankly admit that it is an exceedingly difficult task to balance the conflicting interests and claims which arise on an issue of this kind.
Both hon. Members have emphasised that on a matter of this kind I should not take undue notice of the advice I receive from my officials. There is some strength in that, of course, and I do not in any way suggest that a Minister could ride off his responsibility by just following the advice of his officials. Nevertheless, I do not think my hon. Friends gave quite a correct analysis of this situation.
I am supported in these matters by a considerable volume of expert and knowledgeable opinion. Obviously, no person in my position can know the traffic conditions on all the roads of the country or of a great metropolis like London. That was why Parliament established the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and it would be very difficult to improve the representative character of that Committee.
I would remind both my hon. Friends that roughly half the membership of that Advisory Committee consists of people nominated by local authorities in and around London—the London County Council, the Metropolitan boroughs and other local authorities. It would be quite wrong to assume that the advice which the Minister receives on a matter of this kind is circumscribed by the limited views of any person, whether he is an official or not. These local authority representatives, who come from all parts of London, have a knowledge of London traffic conditions and can assist in the problem of determining where the 30 miles restriction should be observed.
I do not dispute that I should necessarily follow the advice that the police give me on matters of this character, but it does not follow that I should reject the advice of the police. They are exceedingly knowledgeable of these traffic problems and no one can argue, taking the experience of the police in this country and their knowledge of the traffic and accident problem—a most serious aspect of the administration of the Ministry of


Transport—that the police do not approach these problems always with a desire to serve the public, facilitate the movement of traffic and protect the citizens of any locality.
I mention these matters to emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is not a case here of just finally putting in a routine report to the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, suggested when he put his case so thoroughly and with such force to me. I have considered this on two or three occasions on his representations. I have had the problem examined on two or three occasions. The police and my own divisional road engineers are fairly experienced in these matters, and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee could not recommend me to impose speed restrictions on this stretch of the North Circular Road.
The North Circular Road was essentially built for the purpose of facilitating the movement of traffic in and around London and to ease the congestion problem. In this stretch of the North Circular Road, there is a dual carriage way 27 feet wide with a central reservation of 14 feet. There are 9-foot verges with footpaths on each side. As a result of the recommendations that have been made, we have adopted various proposals which we have felt should facilitate and make better the crossing of this particular section. As my hon. Friend has said, we have fenced certain parts of the road and steps are being taken now to improve the lighting of this section.
I am not able, at this moment, to say whether I can reconsider the matter or give a definite decision here tonight. I know my two hon. Friends sufficiently well to know that if they put up a case of this kind to me it justifies me in once

more re-examining the problem. Therefore, the only undertaking I can give them tonight is that I will again have the matter thoroughly examined. I cannot look at it entirely from the point of view of the built-up area. I must consider the character of the North Circular Road and the functions which it has to perform. Nevertheless, I give the assurance that this matter will have my personal consideration to see how far I can meet them, or how I can go further to improve the position.
In regard to roundabouts and fly-overs, I am afraid that they are out of the question at the present moment. The demands on the Road Fund are so severe and the resources are so restricted that I do not think I could turn my attention to that type of solution at the present moment. My undertaking that I will again look into it must end the matter for the time being.

Mr. Orbach: May I say one word of thanks to the Minister for giving to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), and myself the undertaking that he will look at the matter again? I would ask him whether, in doing so, he would give me the pleasure of driving him along the road, with his officials—which will be most desirable—so that, then, on the spot, we can really see the matter and perhaps influence his decision one way or the other. I would like to make it quite clear that I thought I had ruled out the question of a fly-over. There is a roundabout at the moment, but it appears to be causing the police and all concerned a great deal of trouble. I urge the institution of traffic lights at this particular spot.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Ten o'Clock.